정산금반환 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) exceeding the part ordering payment under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.
1. The scope of the trial in this Court is the principal claim, the claim for the settlement of accounts against the defendant B, and the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation against the defendant C was all dismissed in the first instance court. It is evident in the record that the plaintiff filed an appeal only as to the claim for the settlement of accounts against the defendant B among them, and the court changed it in exchange for the loan claim in this court.
Therefore, only the loan claim against the defendant B is subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, while working in the form of part-time fee at the “E” store operated by Defendant B, lent the sum of KRW 6,99,000 to Defendant B from February 2013 to July 2013.
B. Around August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant C settled the accounts of the Plaintiff and Defendant C, the Plaintiff and the Defendant C settled the amount to be paid to Defendant C as the interior work cost and the goods storage cost, etc. incurred by the Plaintiff’s opening up F 2 points. A total of KRW 153,564,000,000, which are the sum to be paid to Defendant C. As seen above, the Plaintiff appropriated the aggregate of KRW 69,960,000 and KRW 1.5 million additionally deposited by the Plaintiff to Defendant C, thereby settling the amount to be paid to Defendant C as KRW 82,104,00.
After that, the amount remaining after the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,794,750 to Defendant C was KRW 65,309,250 ( KRW 82,104,00 - KRW 16,794,750), and the Plaintiff agreed to pay it to Defendant C by August 29, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
3. According to the above facts of recognition, all of the Plaintiff’s loan claims against Defendant B upon settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendant C were extinguished, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C regarding the existence and scope of the obligation from August 30, 2014, which is the date following the due date for payment, is deemed reasonable. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25509, Sep. 30, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25507, Sep. 30, 2014>