손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant C is dismissed.
3.
1. The scope of this court’s adjudication against Defendant B’s prospective occupants’ council (hereinafter “Defendant Council”) claimed KRW 3,490,000 as damages for nonperformance due to nonperformance of obligation, and as a result, Defendant C filed a claim against Defendant C for compensation for damages arising from the primary tort, ① contract performance guarantee amounting to KRW 2,00,000, and ② expenses such as banner and leaflet, ② KRW 3,490,000, and ③ KRW 30,000,000 as damages due to credit damage. In addition, Defendant C filed a claim against Defendant C
The first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant Council among the primary claims, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant C, and did not render a judgment on the conjunctive claim against the Defendant C.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed on the ancillary claim against Defendant C, omitted in the first instance judgment, and the part against the Plaintiff among the claim for consolation money.
The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendant C are the so-called "indemable preliminary consolidation" that seeks a trial on the conjunctive claims under the condition of rescission in preparation for the plaintiff's main claims with a priority attached and not accepting the main claims.
In such a case, where the court rendered a decision that did not judge the conjunctive claim while rejecting the main claim, the part of the conjunctive claim for which judgment was omitted shall be transferred to the appellate court, and the part of the conjunctive claim for which judgment is omitted shall not be deemed to be pending in the court below because it falls under
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da2253 delivered on November 16, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23598 delivered on October 25, 2002, etc.). Therefore, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the claim of consolation money and the plaintiff’s ancillary claim against Defendant C.
2. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is comprehensively considered.