2018Da204497 ( principal office) Construction Costs

2018Da204503 (Counterclaim) Damage, etc.

1. A manager B of A of the rehabilitation debtor, who is a litigation taking over a stock company;

2. C:

D. Corporation

Law Firm all others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Cha Young-young, Kim Young-hoon, Kim Young-soo, Park Young-young, leap, Park Young-young

Daejeon High Court Decision 2016Na15301, 2016Na15318 decided December 6, 2017

May 11, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that “the Defendant (the Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) is liable to pay the Plaintiffs damages for the cancellation of the contract, including KRW 637,597,230, as well as damages for delay.” As to the counterclaim claim, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is jointly and severally with the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. A’s receiver B (hereinafter referred to as the “Manager”) for rehabilitation debtor A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Manager”) for restitution of KRW 158,40,00 and USD 208,015, as well as damages for delay thereof (including legal interest) due to the rescission of the contract, the amount of KRW 78,925,245, and USD 80,175, as unjust enrichment.”

However, the above part was erroneous in omitting judgment as follows. According to the records, the defendant asserted to the effect that "the defendant's claim against the plaintiff C and the damage claim against the plaintiff C against the defendant against the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the defendant of the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the defendant

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated whether the Plaintiff C’s damage claim and the Defendant’s claim are offset against each other, and determined the Defendant’s counterclaim. Nevertheless, while partially accepting the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, the lower court did not render any judgment as to the offset defense against the Plaintiff with the same content. In so doing, the lower court erred by omitting judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge