beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 26, 2016 to January 12, 2017.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.
1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s counterclaim to the Defendant’s counterclaim to the instant lawsuit prior to the merits is not identical to the Plaintiff’s principal claim amount, etc., and the subject matter and the cause are not common, and thus, there is a concern that the Defendant’s counterclaim may not be permitted. 2) The Defendant’s counterclaim to the instant lawsuit may not have entered into a lease agreement or any other contractual relationship with C, and the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as the Plaintiff’s counterclaim to the instant lawsuit at the time of Tong Young-si (hereinafter “instant main claim”) was leased from C on August 12, 2010, not only on July 2012, but also on August 12, 2010, which was two years prior to the date of the instant lawsuit.
B. Determination 1) According to Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s defense prior to the merits must not significantly delay the litigation procedures, and must be related to the principal lawsuit or the means of defense. Thus, if the principal lawsuit and the subject matter of the counterclaim or the cause of the counterclaim are in fact common, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claims should be deemed related.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court, Feb. 14, 2013; 2012Da60374, Feb. 14, 2013; 201Da60374, etc.). Then, the claim of this case was based on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease or a lease transfer contract for the main points of this case, and was related to the performance of the said contract, or settlement of lease deposit for the lease contract for the main points of this case. The Plaintiff asserted that the claim of this case for the counterclaim of this case was paid to the main points of this case, not the loan, but the deposit for the lease contract for the main points of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return. In light of the above, it appears that