beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The payment note by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on June 10, 2013.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a concurrent counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a fish driving school (hereinafter “the instant driving school”) with the trade name “D Language Private Teaching Institutes” on the 11st floor of Busan Maritime Transport Daegu C, and the Defendant is a person who registered the Defendant’s child E and F in the instant driving school.
B. From March 2011, the Defendant registered E with the instant private teaching institute from March 201 to June 10, 2013, from March 2012 to June 10, 2013, the Defendant visited the instant private teaching institute on June 10, 2013 to ensure that the academic achievement of the Defendant’s children is significantly insufficient compared with other students, such as E’s failure to suggest a alpha, etc.
C. On June 10, 2013, from around 17:00 to 21:00, the Defendant, along with the Defendant’s female G, the Defendant’s wife H and her husband I, and the Plaintiff at the instant private teaching institute, stated that “the Plaintiff will return KRW 30 million, in total, from June 10, 2013 to August 2013, the sum of KRW 10 million, as of the end of each month from June 10, 2013.”
(d) Around October 2013, the Plaintiff received delivery. Around June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff settled the Plaintiff’s educational institute expenses and paid KRW 4,10,000,000 to the Defendant, out of the prepaid educational institute expenses. (e) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant (No. 2013 type No. 28412 at the Dong Office of Busan District Prosecutors’ Office), but the appeal, reappeal, and application for ruling were all dismissed upon being subject to the disposition of unsuspected (Evidence of Evidence) on November 8, 2013; (2) H filed a complaint against the crime of interference with business (the same prosecutor’s office, type No. 29675), was suspended on December 9, 2013; (3) the Defendant and I, interference with business, and complaint with business; (4) the Plaintiff received an application for adjudication and dismissed the application for adjudication on May 16, 2014 (No. 2014 type No.731, Mar. 16, 27, 197).