beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows. (1) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows. (2) Even when considering the circumstances of the plaintiff's assertion, such as the statement of evidence No. 30 additionally submitted by the plaintiff in this court, and the defendant's disposal of part of the inherited property, the document of this case, which is a disposal document, is insufficient to recognize "all new time" as "when the defendant conducts a business by inheritance on his own or after a considerable period of time necessary to conduct a business in a stable manner," unlike its objective meaning, unlike its objective meaning, the document of this case, which is a disposal document, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, except for addition of the judgment that is sufficient to recognize as "when the defendant conducts a business in a stable manner by way of inheritance by himself or after a considerable period of time required
The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows from 3 pages up to 4 pages up to 3 pages up to 2 pages up to 4 pages up to 3.
In a case where the content of a contract is prepared in writing between the parties to the contract, and the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized as well. In particular, in a case where the interpretation differently from the objective meaning of the text causes a serious impact on the legal relationship between the parties, the content of the text should be more strictly interpreted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26769, Nov. 11, 2010, etc.). Meanwhile, even if the validity or extinction of a juristic act depends on the nature of an uncertain fact in the future, it shall be deemed as a time limit even if it is not determined, if it is realized in the future.
If it is reasonable to regard that the subsidiary does not perform its obligation unless there is a fact indicated in the subsidiary in the juristic act attached to it.