beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The judgment on the cause of the claim 2.” No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of
As to the meaning of compulsory conciliation of this case, which includes the content unfavorable to the Plaintiff that “the Defendant who is obligated to perform an appropriate litigation for the Plaintiff, waives the division of property against the property in Korea,” the Plaintiff, by falsely explaining to the Plaintiff that “it is a waiver of jurisdiction in Korea, but not a waiver of the division of property itself,” thereby preventing the Plaintiff from raising an objection against the compulsory conciliation of this case, thereby causing losses to make it impossible to claim a division of property in the U.S. against the instant commercial building. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for 50% of the market value of the instant commercial building as damages. Moreover, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered from mental shock due to the Defendant’s aforementioned acts
Therefore, the defendant is also liable for damages, and the defendant is claiming compensation for damages for the amount of KRW 50 million, which is a part of the damages caused by the failure to claim a division of property in the United States against the defendant, and for the amount of KRW 50 million, which is the consolation money for mental impulse and the amount of KRW 50 million, and damages for delay.
First of all, as to whether the Defendant committed an act in violation of the delegation contract by falsely explaining the content of the instant forced conciliation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a written statement, such as evidence Nos. 6 and 7, before the instant forced conciliation became final and conclusive, and the contents indicated in the written statement, etc. are as follows: “The Korean court did not hold a trial in Korea, and decided to file a lawsuit on all the property in the future in the United States.”