손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of the claim(s) by this court, shall be modified as follows:
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “The Defendant at the time of the instant lease agreement” in the fourth 1st sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance; “The Defendant shall dismiss “the time of the instant lease agreement” as “before March 30, 2012 after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement,” and “B evidence No. 5” in the fifth 5th sentence is the same as the part on the “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, and this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit (as to the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance) is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance on the claim of the principal lawsuit are justified.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant lease agreement by the court around January 2013 is not due to the Plaintiff’s delay in delivering the leased object to the Defendants, but rather due to the amendment by Act No. 11252 on February 1, 2012.
8.2. Added to the purport that it is due to Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act, which was enforced since 2.
However, it is not sufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion by only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court as to a claim filed in the principal lawsuit is to seek confirmation of the existence of rehabilitation claims and voting rights in accordance with the 18th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance.
“To seek confirmation of the existence of a rehabilitation claim”.
In addition to the fact that each of the “3 March 23, 2014” of the 8th and 6th and 14th and each of the “2014 March 24, 2014,” each of the “2014,” the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part on the grounds of “2. Determination on the claim for principal action” in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it shall
3. Judgment on a counterclaim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants 1 by the parties concerned is up to August 31, 2012.