Appeal and measures by the appellate court against the claims not indicated in the text of the judgment of the first instance, which have been judged in the reasoning of the judgment.

With respect to the claim which has not been cited in the first instance court, there is no explanation about the order of the original judgment and only the reason why it is dismissed. Accordingly, with respect to the claim for this part, the first instance court omitted the decision, which is still interpreted as continuing in the first instance court. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal against that part is illegal and dismissed.

Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Act

6Da540 decided May 24, 1966 (Article 198(5) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 198(5) 349, 136)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 4292Da120 decided May 1, 200

The plaintiff's winning part in the original judgment shall be modified to the unit of the winning part in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 86,500 refunds.

The plaintiff's claim for contribution is dismissed.

The plaintiff's public prosecution is dismissed.

The litigation costs incurred due to the plaintiff's indictment shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the contribution costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the contribution costs by the court of first and second instances shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the contribution shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant’s agent’s claim is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The judgment that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit cost is assessed against the Plaintiff through the first and second instance court, and the judgment that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed shall be revoked. The Defendant again pays 300,000 won to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s lawsuit cost is assessed against the Defendant through the first and second instance court, and the Defendant’s prosecution is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s agent’s statement is in fact a pro rata’s statement that two parts of the lower court’s testimony were cut off on August 23, 291, the Plaintiff’s two parts of the testimony were 3 weeks from the Defendant and 1, and the Nonparty’s testimony was 40,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and the Defendant’s testimony and 10,000,000 won, and the Defendant’s testimony and 10,000,0.

Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 4’s testimony of the lower court, the Defendant is able to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff’s two parts of the lower court’s judgment were 3 weeks for treatment, and there is no burden of misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s property damage caused by the tort and raising mental pain. Accordingly, according to the testimony of Nonparty 4 of the lower court, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the tort and to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the tort, and that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to compensate for the damages caused by the tort, such as 3,00 won, and 23,500 won as medical treatment expenses, and the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the injury of Nonparty 3, the lower court’s testimony that the Plaintiff would not have been able to obtain the same for 3 weeks due to the injury of Nonparty 5, and thus, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff would not have any property damage for 500 days for a new trial.

Judges Kang Jung-hee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)