1. The appeal on the counterclaim by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be dismissed;

2. The part concerning the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance.

1. We examine ex officio whether the appeal against the plaintiff's counterclaim is legitimate, and both the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed in the first instance court. Since the plaintiff won all the counterclaims, the plaintiff's appeal concerning the plaintiff's counterclaims is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

(1) In principle, the Plaintiff’s counterclaims are subject to res judicata, and thus, the Plaintiff’s counterclaims were accepted to have the benefit of appeal. However, in the case of the counterclaims of this case, not the Plaintiff’s counterclaims but the Defendant’s claim for set-off with the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff that the Defendant seeks, and thus, the instant appeal against the Plaintiff’s counterclaims of this case does not have any benefit of appeal). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the counterclaims of this case is dismissed.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the defendant's defense of set-off and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. On the part of the plaintiff's counterclaim, the plaintiff and the defendant filed an appeal against the counterclaim, but it is evident that only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the counterclaim.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, an appeal against the Plaintiff’s counterclaim is unlawful as there is no benefit of dissatisfaction.

Therefore, since only the principal claim is subject to the judgment of this Court, the following should be judged only on the principal claim:

3. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 19, and 11-1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14.

The Defendant and C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant, etc.”) concluded an agency contract with Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Modern Motor”) in the name of the Defendant, and jointly run the Hyundai Motor E Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agency”) in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D land from October 2001.