beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the auditor of the defendant under Section 4 of the fifth judgment of the court of first instance was corrected as the auditor of the plaintiff; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance; and (c) thereby, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A. The instant contract is a sale and purchase contract for the instant forest, which is the reason for appeal, and ① the Defendants were owned in the middle door and entered into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff as a lawful representative of the door. ② Even if not, the Defendants did not perform their obligations to transfer the ownership of the instant forest under the instant contract. As the Plaintiff cancelled or cancelled the instant contract by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price of the instant forest (i.e., total purchase price of KRW 80 million - cemetery equipment KRW 10 million).
Judgment
1) As long as the authenticity of the instant contract is recognized as a sales contract for the instant forest, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated therein, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). However, even if a disposal document is proven as genuine, where there exists a counter-proof or reasonable ground to deem the contents of the document as contrary to objective truth, the court may reject its probative value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57117, Feb. 8, 1994).