beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant a disposal fee even where the instant real estate was sold voluntarily by the priority beneficiary only.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,
B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Defendant to have performed a substantive business that could have been paid separate remunerations in relation to the disposal (including the settlement of dividends) of the instant real estate, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant should be paid reasonable remunerations for the sales disposal of the instant
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending
C. In light of the relevant legal principles and records as to Article 3 of the Reasons for Appeal, the court below is just in holding that the Defendant’s act of withdrawing money under the pretext of disposal fees was occurred, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to causation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds for appeal.
2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence as indicated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant constituted the instant case by August 2012.