beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are continuing to proceed with the rehabilitation procedure until the present time, which is set forth in Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance in Section 3.
As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the Defendants’ “(2)” as the Defendants’ “(2)” and the Defendants’ “Defendant’s “Defendant” as the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” are deemed as indicated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Part of the defendants' factory site or factory access route is owned by another person. Part of the factory site is a river molding building, which is an illegal building. In the case of the RPF boiler, it is a machine with no asset value due to a malfunction. The data provided by the defendants or Samil Accounting Firm to the plaintiff are not stated or are stated in the amount of 6 billion won in the case of the RPF boiler. In light of this, the defendants are deemed to have deceiving the plaintiff as to the value of the assets held by the defendants by failing to fulfill the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle or actively notifying the plaintiff of false facts. In addition, in light of the purport of the statement of understanding of this case, the plaintiff, which is erroneous in the value of the assets held by the defendants, was made to enter into the statement of understanding of this case with the defendants. In addition, in light of the purport of the statement of this case, the defendants' failure to perform the duty of disclosure to the plaintiff or the defendants's warranty liability as a seller under Article 69 of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to require the acceptance price reduction exceeding 5% of this case.
3..