beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of social justice and equity, with a free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the original judgment does not exceed the bounds of
(1) Article 432 of the same Act provides that a person who registered the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter referred to as “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) has the right to conclude the lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter referred to as “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) as indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, such as partially admitting and rejecting or adding a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is insufficient to prove that the Defendant (the Counterclaim; the Defendant hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) concluded the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter referred to as “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) by lending the name of D.
The ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding that led to the judgment of the court below is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, and thus, cannot be accepted.
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 on the burden of proof, title trust, etc., and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of final appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.