1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The scope of this court’s adjudication at the first instance court sought payment of KRW 10,00,000 for the compensation for damages, KRW 651,098 for the loan interest due to the suspension of payment of passbook payment, KRW 10,000 for the confiscated down payment, KRW 20,000 for the solatium, and KRW 20,000 for the compensation. The court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, it is clear that the Plaintiff filed an appeal only for the portion of KRW 5,000,000 out of KRW 10,000,000.

Therefore, only 5,00,000 won out of the remainder of the compensation for resettlement, excluding the part not appealed by the plaintiff, shall be subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant erroneously notified the Plaintiff of the amount of asset assessment by computer work negligence, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 10,000,000 as compensation for resettlement because it did not have any director within the period of resettlement fixed. Therefore, the Defendant should pay the amount of KRW 5,00,000 equivalent to the Defendant’s fault ratio of 50% among the above compensation for resettlement, and the delay

B. 1) In this part of the cited judgment of the first instance court, the reasons for the entry in this part are as follows, except for the addition of the following circumstances, with the entry from 3th to 11th 4th 13th tier of the judgment of the first instance. 2) The addition is made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 5) The Daelim Industry, a contractor, paid KRW 10,000,000 of the compensation for resettlement when a partner completes relocation within the resettlement period set by the Defendant. The Defendant set the resettlement period from August 11, 2016 to 10th 2016, and extended the resettlement period from July 9, 2016 to December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff again granted the resettlement period from July 14, 2017 to August 6, 2017 within the said period.