손해배상(기) 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. Defendant B, which was added by the Plaintiff at the trial.
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff appealed only KRW 96,143,950 among the parts of the claim, and claimed the cause of the claim as a breach of trust or embezzlement. < Amended by Act No. 104,91,294; Act No. 85,000,000, Mar. 1, 2000; Act No. 85,000,000 for the damages arising from the breach of trust or embezzlement ( ② and ③) and the first instance court rendered a decision to dismiss all of the claims, the Plaintiff appealed only KRW 96,143,950.
In addition, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Defendant Associate C&C on ① refund of KRW 85,000,000, and ② claim for damages of KRW 90,268,501 due to unfair provisional seizure, and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff in its entirety, and only the part of the claim was appealed.
Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for damages (or unjust enrichment) due to the Plaintiff’s breach of trust or embezzlement against Defendant B and the claim for damages of KRW 90,268,50 due to the illegal provisional seizure against Defendant B.
2. The court's explanation of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.
(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, on November 27, 2014, the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, stating that “The Defendant Associate C&C appealed appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da112803) and currently pending in the final appeal is currently pending in the final appeal,” which read “The Defendant Associate C&C appealed appealed (Supreme Court Decision 201Da112803), and the judgment dismissing the final appeal of the Defendant Associate C&C was rendered and became final and conclusive (Evidence 23).”
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B/C
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant BC’s assignment of the instant secondary or sixth assignment of claims is null and void, but Defendant BC is the site of the Plaintiff-owned hospital around January 2009, immediately before the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the transfer of claims (hereinafter “the instant transfer of claims”).