손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and incidental appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The appeal costs.
1. The cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the conclusion among the reasons for the entry with respect to this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Court shall dismiss “19,216,472 won” in Section 10 of Part 4 of the Judgment of the court of first instance as “19,216,742 won”.
The "119,216,472 won" in Part 4 of the Judgment of the first instance shall be "19,216,742 won".
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, "A Nos. 17 and 18-1 through 16" are "A No. 4-1 through 3, A-5-1 through 3, A-17, A-1 through 16, A-18-1 through 16, A-21, and 22".
The defendant in the 5th judgment of the first instance court shall add the "as requested by the plaintiff" to the plaintiff in the 5th judgment.
The following shall be added to the last part of Part VI of the judgment of the first instance.
“The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the period of extinctive prescription of five years has not expired since the claim for each of the above takeovers constitutes a claim for each of the above restaurants under the Commercial Act, which was settled in a lump sum and paid each month through an agreement with the Defendant. However, the agreement, as alleged by the Plaintiff, which can be known in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 28 and 29, is merely merely about the payment method of meal expenses, and it does not constitute a circumstance that the nature of the claim for food service fees has changed to the agreed amount claim as alleged by the Plaintiff
) The part of the first instance court’s Decision Nos. 6, 14, and 18, “However, it cannot be seen as follows.”
However, this is considered to have been paid by the Plaintiff for the acquisition of the claim, and it is considered to have managed the business of the Plaintiff, and it is a "management of another person's business."