퇴직금 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff primarily claimed retirement pay from the Defendant against the Defendant as the representative director, and the Defendant, Co-Defendant D and Co-Defendant E, who is the Defendant’s inside director and the representative director, embezzled the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.
As to this, the first instance court partially accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and dismissed the claim against the co-defendant. The plaintiff and co-defendants of the first instance court did not appeal, and the defendant filed an appeal against the lost part.
The Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court are not legally incompatible, and thus, the lawsuit cannot be deemed a preliminary or selective co-litigation within the original meaning as stipulated in Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation does not apply mutatis mutandis, and thus, the effect of blocking the final and conclusive judgment due to an appeal has only arisen between the appellant and the other party, and does not extend to the relationship between the other co-litigants (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76747, Sept. 27, 2012). Therefore, the first instance judgment against the co-defendants of the first instance court is separated and decided separately from the appeal period limit, and the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part
2. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: since the defendant paid all retirement allowances to the plaintiff through the G Association account opened by Co-Defendant E in accordance with the plaintiff's instructions, the defendant's obligation of retirement allowance was extinguished
This is not different from the argument in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court on this issue are recognized as legitimate.
Therefore, the court's reasoning for this case is that the defendant submitted to this court.