The documents of the case revealed that the appellant was one of the partners in a company and that the disputed restaurant was a branch of this company.

The court said that the case was therefore filed against a relevant party. The court said that the expert report confirmed that the company (litigant) had completed the contracting work assigned to them and that the appellant still owed an amount of money to it as a result. The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence. The court said that the consideration of the case and the suitable evidence fell under the court's authority.

The court dismissed the appeal.