청구이의
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
3. The first instance.
1. The scope of the judgment of this court in the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant’s Plaintiff, claiming for the denial of compulsory execution based on the payment order in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015 tea3551 Contract non-performance guarantee case. The Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking damages due to a tort. The claim was wholly accepted, and part of the counterclaim claim was partially accepted, and the remainder of counterclaim claim was dismissed.
For this reason, only the plaintiff filed an appeal regarding the part against the plaintiff among the counterclaims, so this Court's judgment is limited to the part against the plaintiff's appeal.
2. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as that of the part concerning the counterclaim (paragraphs 1 and 3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The term "dub" in the third 9th 9th e.g., the term "two times" and the term " July 11, 2015" in the third 15th e.g. " July 10, 2015", respectively.
Article 399 "Article 399" shall be deemed to be "Article 401" during the 8th 10th 10th am.
After the 8th decision of the first instance court, “The plaintiff does not have any responsibility for compensating the defendant for damages, since the defendant filed the instant counterclaim while submitting the forged contract (Evidence No. 6) without deceiving the defendant.”
The judgment of the court of first instance in the 16-17th day of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as "the judgment of the court of first instance".
3. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance on the counterclaim is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
On the other hand, in the decision of the court of first instance, the "payment order of August 12, 2015" in the decision of the court of first instance is clear that it is a clerical error in the "payment order", and in the decision of the court of first instance in the decision of paragraph 2, it is obvious that the "re