손해배상(기)
The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for the return of the construction cost in the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the conclusion of paragraph (4) is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this case is cited as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, by excluding the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts to be cited or added and the
[Supplementary or additional parts] Decision 2 of the first instance court (hereinafter this part of the judgment is omitted)
B. (2) Paragraph (a) of the same Article provides that “The portion of the return of the construction cost” shall be as follows:
A. According to the facts of recognition of the legality of the lawsuit on the claim for return of the construction cost of KRW 7.7 million, the plaintiff and the defendant acknowledged that they agreed not to later file a civil, criminal, or accusation in relation to the land of this case. In full view of the facts stated in the agreement and the developments leading up to the agreement, the "in relation to the land of this case" stated in the agreement refers to matters concerning the cancellation of the contract of this case and restoration to original state, and it is reasonable to see that "after prosecution, criminal, criminal, or accusation" includes the institution of civil lawsuit.
Therefore, insofar as the above agreement is not null and void as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that there exists an agreement to bring an action on the claim for restitution following the cancellation of the contract of this case. The claim for restitution of the construction price of KRW 7.7 million is a claim for restitution following the cancellation of the contract of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit on this claim is unlawful as it violates the agreement to bring an action
However, it is difficult to view that the part of the Plaintiff’s claim, other than this part, is included in those subject to the partial lawsuit agreement.
In other words, ① a claim for KRW 40 million due to the invalidation of agreement is sought for the return of the claim on the premise that the agreement is null and void, so it is difficult to regard it as a claim for restitution related to the cancellation of the contract in this case.