beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.01 2016나10221

사용료

Text

1. The appellant C shall dismiss the appeal;

2. The remaining designated parties, excluding Plaintiff (Appointeds) and Appointed C, are as follows.

Reasons

1. We examine the legitimacy of the appeal filed by the designated party C ex officio (the effect of the selection is until the termination of the lawsuit, unless there is an agreement, etc. on the limitation of the instance at the time of the selection of the appointed party C) and as long as the petition of appeal filed on August 31, 2016 under the name of the “Plaintiff (Appointed)” was received, it is reasonable to see that C also filed an appeal, as long as the petition of appeal was received on November 14, 2003).

An appeal may be filed only for a judgment unfavorable to an appellant, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to appellant shall be determined as at the time of the filing of the appeal on the basis of the main text of the judgment. Therefore, any party who has received the judgment in the first instance judgment in the whole winning of the appeal shall not be

The appeal filed by the selector C is unlawful as there is no benefit in the appeal, since the first instance court has declared that it has accepted the claim by the selector C in its entirety (Supreme Court Decision 83Da515 delivered on October 25, 1983).

2. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case in this case are as follows: ① "The evidence No. 18 through No. 9 is nothing more than the value-added tax return document prepared by the plaintiffs on the basis of the above tax invoice" in the first instance judgment; ② "No. 15, No. 19-1, and No. 3" in the third part, and "No. 17-1, and No. 2" in the second part, and "No. 15, No. 19-1, and No. 19-3, the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance is difficult to recognize the above argument; ② "No. 17-1 and No. 2 are insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the argument; ③ Even if family Q is not awarded the right to representation from the defendant, the defendant used the above facts in light of the above facts."