beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
(Evidence No. 5,6, and 7 of the last sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be different from that of the first instance judgment even in light of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the first instance. The last sentence of the first instance judgment “No. 5, 6, and 7” is deemed to be “No. 3 through No. 7.
After the judgment of the first instance court No. 6 of the 7th trial, the plaintiff submitted a confirmation of the fact (Evidence No. 17 of the A) prepared by H operating G by asserting that "I will supply 1,800 litres from the original G in the trial, not the supply of 1,80 litres from the original G, but only the supply of 1,400 litres from the order L including surplus 1,400 litres from L. However, H provided 1,800 litres from the judgment of the first instance, knowing that "I knew that the order transit received from L is 1,800 litres from the order received from L, and actually offered 1,40 litres from the order of L, and the remaining 400 litres from the order of L was written by the plaintiff)."
From No. 9 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "No. 4" of the "No. 8 from the "No. 8" to the "No. 4 from the "No. 8" to the "No. 8 is" was requested by G to deliver the "No. 8" to the "No. 8". The plaintiffs asserted that the "No. 5" was signed and sealed on the confirmation document of this case stating that the oil loaded on the selling vehicle of this case was 1,80 liter as the "1,680 liter" without the plaintiff's knowledge that the transit supplied from G at the time was 1,800 liter as stated in the "No. 8 (Tax Invoice)". However, the plaintiff argued that the oil loaded on the selling vehicle of this case was not used as it is, and it was merely