beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In the part of the body of the first instance, "D, E, and F" in the third 5-6 parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be raised to "D, E, and K of the Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun."
The judgment on the Defendant’s argument in Section 2 of Section 4 of the first instance judgment is understood as “B. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion”.
The fourth through fifth of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. The fourth to fifth of the judgment of the first instance are as follows.
3) In addition, the Defendants asserted that on December 26, 2014, the payment agreement was made with the Plaintiff on payment in kind, and accordingly, on December 30, 2015, the Defendant handed over to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 200,000,000 in the market value of six Gelim 6 points, such as U.S., U.J., and that the total market value of five Gelim 10,000,000, which is well-known, was additionally delivered to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the above construction costs obligations were entirely extinguished.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 1-4 to 6, 6-1, 2, and 8-1 (Agreement, evidence Nos. 6-1, 8-4, and 5) of the evidence Nos. 1-6-1, 2, and 8-1 (Agreement, and evidence No. 6-1, No. 8-5 of the evidence No. 6-1, No. 8-5 of the evidence No. 6-1, the authenticity of the pleadings is recognized. Accordingly, although the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s seal was forged on the part of the Defendants, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s seal without any consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), the entire arguments were acknowledged on Nov. 10, 2014 by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances are as follows: