beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall render a judgment of fact-finding with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and equity, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the
(Article 202 and Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Act). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the remaining grounds that there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the balance of the loan the Plaintiff had not repaid from the Defendant remains more than KRW 202,910,249.
The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court as the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the court
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the revocation of confession, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, in a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background of such agreement, the purpose
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007