beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the relationship of claim and obligation of the original Defendant: ① Loss 3,547,320,000, ② Loss 1,465,110,000, ② Loss 1,465,10,000, ③ the Defendant’s payment of the construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor in lieu of the Plaintiff; ④ the payment of the interest on the Defendant’s financial institution loans amounting to KRW 410,00,000, ⑤ the payment of the interest on the Plaintiff’s behalf of the Plaintiff, ⑤ the payment of KRW 1,20,000,000 (the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 1,70,000,000,000 from the N Account under the direction of the Defendant’s establishment (the Plaintiff had to receive KRW 5,00,000,000,000 from the Defendant, but has to receive KRW 1,50,000,000 from the Defendant, 2096,2000.
B. The assertion about the primary claim (a claim for agreed amount) is identical to the description on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. The Plaintiff asserted as to the first preliminary claim (claim for Return of Unjust Enrichment). The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of the instant repayment was KRW 4,755,457,554,554, and KRW 410,00,00,000, totaling KRW 4165,457,554, excluding KRW 133,817,420, which was already repaid at the direction of the Defendant, and the same amount as the amount indicated in the instant repayment note, as the Plaintiff stated in the instant repayment note, at the fourth date for pleading of January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed as KRW 4,031,640,134, which was the amount of the instant repayment note stated in the written repayment note, and sought as the payment of said money. This erred by misapprehending the amount of KRW 4,037,640,134, which was the amount indicated in the written repayment note.