beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following supplementary judgments, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The witness E of the trial at the court of the trial: (a) as an employee of the AJ company, the principal participated in the contract for the transfer and acquisition of this case with the Plaintiff; (b) due to the absence of the market price for the subject matter of the above contract, the Defendant was in charge of the inspection of the Plaintiff’s assets; (c) the AJ company was aware of the Defendant’s agent (AJ company); but the Plaintiff was aware of the different fact (the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant was the seller (the Plaintiff)’s agent) but the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff and the AJ company requested the Defendant for the transaction of the tea, etc. (see subparagraph 6 of the AJ company); and (d) the Plaintiff purchased each asset listed in Nos. 1 through 13 of the “written confirmation on the change of the details of the transfer and acquisition of assets” (see subparagraph 1-2 of the AJ company) at the Plaintiff’s request.
(See Part 9) The statement was made.
B. Upon examining the above statements by the witness E at the trial in light of the circumstances that can be recognized by the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the defendant, who is engaged in the sale and purchase, maintenance, etc. of construction machinery and has expertise in the market price assessment, condition, maintenance, etc. of construction machinery, the defendant concluded the transfer/acquisition contract of this case on behalf of the seller and the AJ company, which is the buyer, and the plaintiff was aware that the defendant was acting for the plaintiff in the above contract. It is reasonable to view that the defendant performed the brokerage business by representing the plaintiff's interest at the time of the above contract.
C. Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.