손해배상(기)
All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.
1. The scope of the judgment of this court in the first instance court, as the principal lawsuit, filed a claim for the loan, deposit, settlement of profits, and damages against the defendant. The defendant, as a counterclaim, claimed investment funds, rents, damages, and solatium against the plaintiff. Of the principal lawsuit, the amount of settlement of profits, and the portion of the claim for damages was dismissed, and only the portion of the claim for the loan and deposit was accepted, and the counterclaim was dismissed, and it is evident that only the defendant filed an appeal.
Therefore, the loan and deposit claims among the claims on the principal lawsuit are only subject to the judgment of the court.
2. The reasons for this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following dismissal or addition, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(However, among the principal claim that is excluded from the subject of the judgment of this court, the settlement of profits and claims for damages are excluded. On the fourth 10th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th
In the first instance judgment, the term "I Center" in the first instance judgment 6, 11 and 15 shall be read as "I Center or other institutions."
The part of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, 18th to 7th 6th , shall be advanced as follows.
2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to divide or bear profits, marketing and public relations expenses, interior and signboard expenses, advertising expenses, personnel expenses, etc. under the instant business agreement, and thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to bear 5:5 expenses for joint operation of the E chemical datum in accordance with the instant business agreement. As the E chemical datum used approximately 1/3 of the space of “D” and the Defendant spent KRW 3,00,000 per month as the rent of “D,” the Plaintiff paid the Defendant rent from September 2017 to December 2017.