beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if the results of the market price appraisal by Q from the court of first instance were added.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
Nos. 6 to 3-8 shall be followed as follows.
In the part where part of subparagraphs 2 and 4 of the Convention (Evidence 6) submitted by the Plaintiff is deleted and written, the seal of C and the official seal of the representative director of J are affixed. Although the Plaintiff, at which each seal is affixed, it is appropriate for C to have the seal affixed on the third date for pleading of the trial, the Plaintiff stated that C is an official seal affixed thereto. Even if a part of the seal was deleted or written, in light of the location of each seal deleted or written part, C appears to have deleted or added the relevant part after affixing the seal first affixed on the part requiring deletion or addition of the phrase of the existing agreement, and in light of the content of text messages written in the above Convention, it is difficult to conclude that the removal or addition of the relevant phrase was made against the Defendant’s will (the Defendant’s relationship between C and the Defendant, and the representative director of C at his own discretion, it is difficult to obtain the official seal from C, as well as the Defendant’s assertion that it did not have any such assertion as above.
In particular, C consistently asserts that the parties to the instant Convention are not J but the Defendant.