손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The scope of the judgment in this Court rendered a claim for damages due to a tort in the first instance court, and the defendant claimed the payment of consolation money as a counterclaim. The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.
Accordingly, the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiff's claim on the merits of the first instance judgment, since only the plaintiff appealed on the merits of the first instance judgment.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The 6th page of the first instance judgment of the part which is removed or added shall be “for the plaintiff church,” and the following shall be added to the Incheon District Court:
The 16th executive officer of the first instance judgment shall be appointed as the "representative".
In the judgment of the court of first instance, the following 3 to 6th 17th .
1) On July 20, 2014, the Defendant continued to occupy the Plaintiff church as an illegal member of the Plaintiff church even after the resignation as a member of the Plaintiff church. On March 2015, 2015, the Defendant was confirmed that D, who became the member of the Plaintiff church, was transferred the ruling of the Plaintiff church, and finally paid KRW 3,00,000 per month to the Defendant as of March 1, 2015, and that there was no unpaid case.
Nevertheless, as of June 8, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff church claiming KRW 33,500,000 for the unpaid case cost as of June 8, 2014, and eventually received a final judgment in favor of the Defendant on the wind that the Plaintiff church could not respond from time to time.
Therefore, even though there is no precedent fee, the defendant should return to the plaintiff KRW 33,500,000 received from the plaintiff church through the judgment of the court below.
2. Even if such can not be seen as above,