2017Da200375 (Counterclaim) Damage

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s claim against the principal lawsuit seeking confirmation that there is no obligation based on the instant loan agreement. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there was no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of relevant criminal judgment.

2. The counterclaim shall be deemed ex officio; and

Where a plaintiff's claim is dismissed at the first instance court and the appellate court has selectively joined a claim at the appellate court after the plaintiff appealeds the plaintiff's claim, the first instance court recognized that several claims were selectively joined in the appellate court, and the judgment of dismissing the claim is rendered, and the same as the case where the plaintiff appealeds, the court may select and deliberate any one of several joined claims, and the claim dismissed at the first instance court does not need to be examined first, and where one of the claims is deemed reasonable as a result of the examination of a single claim, the court shall pronounce an order citing a claim that the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da669, Oct. 26,

According to the records, at the first instance court, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) claimed damages due to a tort against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim, but the claim was dismissed. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed and added his claim for loans due to the establishment of a loan contract through a preparatory document dated August 18, 2016. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim for damages due to the Defendant’s tort, and recognized that the Defendant’s claim for additional loans was reasonable, the lower court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount by cancelling the part against the Defendant corresponding to the amount cited by the lower court among the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance court, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal

In light of the above legal principles, as long as the court below acknowledged that the defendant's additional loan claim in the court below is well-grounded, the court below should revoke the judgment of the court of first instance and render an order to accept the claim for loans. However, the court below's revocation only to the extent of the amount cited by the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim for damages due to a tort, and dismissed the remaining appeal and did not render an order to accept the claim for additional loans at the court of first instance, was erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal on the counterclaim, the part of the judgment below regarding the counterclaim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won