1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance citing the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate
Therefore, the reasoning for this Court to indicate this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
In the same part, the third through tenth of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as follows.
1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return KRW 50 million to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff was used to repay the Plaintiff’s existing obligation to the F. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to return the said KRW 50 million to the Defendant.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 11 (including the number of pages), the defendant ordered a remote area to supply a remote area ordered by the plaintiff pursuant to the contract of this case. The defendant paid the purchase price of KRW 50 million from the plaintiff to F who sells a remote area as it is in a remote area. However, it is recognized that F appropriated the payment of the purchase price of KRW 50 million from the plaintiff to the payment of the purchase price of the remote area and did not supply the defendant with the remote area.
However, as above, F’s failure to supply a remote area to the Defendant despite receiving KRW 50 million from the Defendant appears to be a matter of implementation of the contract between the Defendant and F, and separately, the Defendant bears the obligation against the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant sales contract. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return the Plaintiff KRW 50 million to its original state following the cancellation of the instant sales contract.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
A person shall be appointed.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit must be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the defendant's counterclaim is asserted.