손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: witness E of the first instance court's judgment, except for adding the following determination to the claims added by the plaintiff in the trial, the reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the witness E of the first instance court's appeal Nos. 3, 11, 6, 12, 13, and 7, 18 and 19.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order regarding C’s damage claim against C with respect to the claim against C, with regard to the claim against the Defendant, and thus, sought payment from the Defendant.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 10-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Eul, "C shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won and 15% interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the complaint is served to the day of complete payment." On June 9, 2016, the above court decided to recommend a settlement as stated in the above purport. The plaintiff did not raise any objection against the above ruling of recommending settlement on June 28, 2016. Since the above ruling of recommending settlement became final and conclusive, the plaintiff filed a collection order with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Ma1988, the plaintiff, the debtor, the defendant, and the defendant 30,30,300,300,300,310,300,300, and 160,000,000,000 won, and one of the above collection orders against the defendant 2.