beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the alteration to ".... the plaintiff has compensated each transaction party listed in the separate sheet that acquired money from the defendant (hereinafter the parties to the transaction of this case) according to the mutual aid agreement of this case" as stated in paragraph (b) of Article 1-C of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of indemnity under the mutual aid contract of this case compensation to the parties to the trade of this case and the damages for delay thereof, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The reasoning for the court’s determination on this part of the Defendant’s assertion is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, with respect to KRW 7,98,849,643 and KRW 6,285,008,648 cited in the judgment of the court of first instance among them, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until August 28, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff from May 29, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, until August 28, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, as to KRW 1,703,840,95, which is additionally cited by the court of first instance, from May 29, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance that it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is above.