beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants (citing the Plaintiff’s claim) shall be revoked.
2. The above-mentioned part shall be applicable.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should pay the service cost of 98,120,00 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff in a lawsuit with the plaintiff's illegal act (a service contract which is not necessary) of the defendants, and that the plaintiff filed a claim with the plaintiff for the payment of the principal of the service cost of 98,120,120,130 won and the damages for delay to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff shall pay the service cost of 81,820,135 won and the damages for delay to the plaintiff. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the claim for the service cost of 98,120,820,135 won and the damages for delay.
This Court's adjudication scope is limited to KRW 98,120,000 equivalent to the principal amount of service costs and damages for delay, since only the Defendants appealed on the part against the Defendants (citing the Plaintiff's claim).
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is that "179,970,135 won" of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance shall be "9,970,135 won" of the 19th "9,970,135 won of the 98,120,000 won of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance" and "98,120,000 won of the 98,120,000 won of the 19th judgment of the court of first instance" shall be as stated in the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, so
4. The reason why the court should explain this part of this case's defense is added to Section 3 of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, "and, after the filing of the suit in this case, I lost the qualification of the representative of the plaintiff." The 8th judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, "O has the authority to represent the plaintiff."