손해배상(기)
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)
A. Indication 1.3 of the annexed drawings among the ground buildings C in the Jeonju-gun of North Korea.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 2005, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant and his husband D (the deceased on October 27, 2016, during the instant lawsuit, died; hereinafter “the deceased and the Defendant”). Around October 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a cafeteria, which had no place to keep the Plaintiff under compulsory execution between the deceased and the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant’s husband and wife, on the part of Jeonbuk-gun Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s husband and wife (hereinafter “instant custody contract”).
B. After the conclusion of the storage contract of this case, the Plaintiff began to keep his restaurant house, etc. in the above building owned by the Defendant couple, and even until the date of the closing of argument of this case, the said articles are kept in the above building.
C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant’s husband and wife on embezzlement, damage to property, and suspicion that the Defendant’s husband and wife had stolen part of the goods stored in the custody contract of this case at the police box within the jurisdiction of business, for which one month has not passed since the commencement of the storage contract of this case, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 15, 2015.
As such, the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband and wife regarding the instant storage contract continues to exist for more than 10 years.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant couple embezzled construction materials, etc. among the Plaintiff’s goods stored under the storage contract of this case, and reported transliters (E) and transliters (F) vehicles to be falsely removed and scrapped. Therefore, the Defendant must pay the Plaintiff the amount of money stated in the claim in the principal lawsuit due to damages incurred therefrom. 2) The Defendant couple’s husband and wife should pay the Plaintiff the amount of money indicated in the Defendant’s claim under the storage contract of this case.