Key legal question
Whether the appeal met the Federal Supreme Court's reasoning requirements and could be examined on the merits.
Extracted holding
No. The filing did not engage with the cantonal court's reasons in a legally sufficient way, and the new document attached was inadmissible.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant merely restated its version of the facts, minimized the debt, invoked payment willingness and alleged agreements, but did not show with reference to the challenged decision why it violated law or the Constitution. This failed under Art. 42(2) and Art. 106(2) LTF; the new evidence was barred by Art. 99(1) LTF.