beta
Text
1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit incurred by a counterclaim shall be borne by the counterclaim.
Reasons
We examine ex officio the legitimacy of a counterclaim.
A defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending until the pleadings are closed (Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The counterclaim of this case is obviously recorded on October 4, 2019, which was concluded after October 17, 2019, the Seoul Southern District Court 2019Da203273, which was the principal lawsuit of this case.
On the other hand, on June 20, 2019, after the pleading was concluded at the date of the second pleading of the instant lawsuit on August 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a written statement claiming that the counterclaim Defendant is liable for damages under the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and filed a claim for resumption of the pleading. Accordingly, the instant court ordered the counterclaim to resume the pleading and to provide necessary arguments and proof related to the contents stated in the written statement until August 27, 2019, but did not submit any statement until the deadline for submission expires.
In addition, on September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff’s agent stated that he would be present at the third date for pleading and that the counterclaim will be brought, and the court ordered that the counterclaim be filed by the next date for pleading and that the specific allegations and proof related to the contents stated in the briefs as of August 6, 2019 be completed, but did not file a counterclaim by the fourth date for pleading on October 17, 2019, and did not submit any briefs or evidence, and the Plaintiff’s agent on the fourth date for pleading did not assert or prove any further.
Then, the counterclaim submitted a counterclaim on November 4, 2019, which was three days prior to the date of the judgment of the principal lawsuit in this case. In light of such circumstances, the counterclaim in this case, which the counterclaim raised by the counterclaim, cannot be deemed to constitute “the case where it does not delay the litigation procedure significantly.”
Therefore, the counterclaim of this case is unlawful due to its defect of the requirements for counterclaim and its defect.