손해배상 등
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 court of first instance dismissed both the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the court of first instance appealed on only the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, which is limited to the part of the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit.
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the Plaintiff’s claim is as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows.
[Supplementary part] The second page 11 added " February 15, 2012" to "as of February 15, 2012", the third page 8 read "personal goods and household appliances return cycle" as "return of personal goods, division of household appliances," and "value of household appliances" as "one-half of the value of household appliances" to "value of household appliances" as "value of household appliances should be paid to the plaintiff, because one-half of the value of household appliances should be paid to the plaintiff."
In the end of paragraph 20 at the end of the third place, “In addition, the entry of subparagraph 2 alone acquired the ownership of household appliances and the Plaintiff’s personal goods as indicated in the separate sheet, or it is insufficient to recognize that the total value of household appliances is KRW 17,900,000, and the total value of the above individual goods is KRW 5,000,000, and there is no other evidence to recognize it,” and “B” following the last line “B,” in full view of the health class, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the separate sheet.
In full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap's evidence and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments in the 8th end of the 2014. The defendant was seized on several occasions from April 6, 2012 to March 5, 2014, but it is recognized that the defendant was seized due to an administrative fine, default of local tax, delinquency of payment, etc., on several occasions, but only the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 9 are stated in the separate sheet.