Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion added to 2.2. The following, and the corresponding portion, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The portion added and the part added;
A. The addition shall be made following the 11th 10th tier judgment of the first instance as follows.
(C) In calculating the amount of damages in cases where an obligee’s negligence with respect to a tort by offsetting profits and losses or nonperformance and where an obligee obtains a benefit therefrom, the amount of damages shall be offset by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu29129, May 8, 1990; 95Da24340, Jan. 23, 1996). The same applies to the limitation of liability for the fair apportionment of damages as well as comparative negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37721, May 15, 2008). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff paid the amount of damages to D through the Defendant, i.e., KRW 6 million x KRW 37721, Apr. 18, 2017 (i.e., the total amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant).
B. On the fourth and sixth sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the appeal was accepted, and currently pending in the court of final appeal is dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 7, 2019. (2) The first and the first to the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. (3) The first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the second to the second to the second to the following.
From August 5, 2017, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from August 21, 2020, which is the date of this decision.