손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stipulated in paragraph (2); and (b) the Defendants’ counterclaims are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, it is decided to accept it in accordance with the main sentence
2. The modified part;
(a) under the second part of the judgment of the first instance, the “merchants in the market” in paragraph 9 shall be read as “the merchants in the market including the defendants”;
(b) Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, “Y” in Part 3 shall be deemed “Y (former name AZ),” and “Z” shall be deemed “BA (former name AZ),” respectively;
C. Part 3 of the first instance court's decision "2010 high-level 1146, etc." in Part 10 of the third instance court's decision is "Yinju District Court 2010 high-level 1146, etc.".
From the third side of the judgment of the first instance court, the third "this court" shall be deemed to be the "Magju District Court's Circuit."
E. Under the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the second part of the judgment " was rendered a favorable judgment to the plaintiffs on August 7, 2009, and it was served with the plaintiffs on August 7, 2009," and "the above judgment was served on the plaintiffs on August 7, 2009," respectively.
F. On the 5th 15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 5th 15th 15th 2006, “The business period of the Plaintiff can not be deemed to be three months in which the Plaintiff can lawfully operate its business,” “if the provisional execution is made early, the business period may be reduced to more than three months, and at the time, the instant company was likely to early implement provisional execution.”
3. Judgment on the defense of set-off
A. The Defendants’ assertion discussed new construction of the market through a general meeting of shareholders on 2007. However, the Plaintiff’s and C’s disturbance did not implement it, which led to the new construction of the market. Accordingly, the costs of constructing the market have to be borne by the Defendants due to the increase of 6.8% from 2007 to 2009, which is the consumer price index increase rate.