임차보증금반환청구의 소
1. The appeal on the counterclaim part by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be dismissed.
2. The part on the principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1. The defendant stated that "the original judgment is revoked" without specifying the principal lawsuit and counterclaim in the purport of the appeal, but did not request a dismissal of the counterclaim in the purport of the appeal, and the part of the cost of the counterclaim is unreasonable in the appellate brief or preparation document, and the defendant's appeal concerning the counterclaim part in the judgment of the court of first instance has not been asserted. The defendant's appeal concerning the counterclaim part in the judgment of the court of first instance should be viewed as an objection to the judgment on the costs of the lawsuit of the court of first instance.
However, given that a judgment on the costs of lawsuit can only file an appeal with the final judgment on the merits without filing an independent appeal (Articles 391 and 390 of the Civil Procedure Act), only an appeal against a judgment on the costs of counterclaim cannot be allowed.
The part concerning the counterclaim among the plaintiff's appeal is unlawful.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) “Evidence A Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 6” in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as “Evidence A Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 7”; (b) “Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim” in Part 8 and the “Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim” in Part 12 shall be dismissed as “Plaintiff’s principal claim”; and (c) except for adding the judgment below, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of
3. The plaintiff alleged that "the defendant would be able to move before the month when he/she agreed to the plaintiff," and that the defendant's assertion as to the main part of the judgment of the court of first instance is impliedly admitted because it did not dispute in the reply and the preparatory document. Thus, the defendant's confession as to the above argument is established.
The summary of the Plaintiff’s above assertion is that the Defendant’s statement as above, which led to an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on one-month director.
【Plaintiffs” shall set up a preparatory document dated July 10, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendants” in the half-straw) in front of one month.