1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

In the first instance court's trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of consolation money of KRW 50,00,100,000, which is part of consolation money of KRW 300,000,000,000 (However, the portion of the claim for commission for Defendant C and D, which is separate claim amount of KRW 3,82,080,00,000,000 and the amount of damages for delay, is excluded from the claim amount of consolation money), and Defendant C filed a claim for the payment of consolation money of KRW 23,00,00 and damages for delay. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff's principal claim and Defendant C's counterclaim claim.

In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed for consolation money of KRW 33 million and fee of KRW 3.8 million in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's claim of the above principal lawsuit.

Defendant B asserted that, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is true, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages has expired, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B should be dismissed. However, the existence of the right to claim is determined within the main text, and thus, Defendant B’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The defendants claiming consolation money did not act in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act but filed a false accusation or false accusation against the plaintiff, and thereafter filed a false accusation or false accusation against the plaintiff, as seen below, in the case of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by the plaintiff, which was followed, and the defendant C and D submitted it to an investigation agency with knowledge that the certificate of fact in this case was forged. The plaintiff was detained due to the above acts of the defendants, or was sentenced to a judgment of conviction.