beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2.In addition, a new trial shall be added.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment in this Court: (a) the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment of KRW 10,00,000 and KRW 31,530,000 according to the purchase and sale contract of February 15, 2012 from the Defendant as the principal lawsuit; (b) the Defendant, as a counterclaim, filed the instant lawsuit claiming damages of KRW 50,00,000; (c) the court of first instance partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for loans among the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit; and (d) rendered a judgment citing the Defendant’s claim for loans, and the damages for delay thereof, the Plaintiff only filed an appeal against the part against the Plaintiff’s loss among the part concerning the claim for unjust enrichment and the part concerning the counterclaim in the first instance judgment; and (d) the Plaintiff added the same claim as stated in the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment is apparent in the record, and thus, the scope of judgment in this Court is limited to the part concerning the return of the claim and the part concerning the claim against the Plaintiff and the part concerning the counterclaim that the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff.
2. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together with the facts of recognition; and
The court's explanation on this part is that "No. 8, 9" of No. 6 of the first instance court's ruling No. 19 is "No. 1, 3, 8, and 9", "the testimony of a witness S" of No. 60 is "the testimony of the witness S of the first instance court", "the testimony of the witness S of the second instance court", and No. 6, No. 17, and No. 18 are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the use of No. 6, No. 19 of the first instance court's ruling as follows. Thus, it is acceptable
[The part used for 6th page 17 to 8]
(j) Meanwhile, on March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff only voluntarily withdrawn a request for auction on N/M land (an application for a compulsory auction on an O real estate unit in the Suwon District Court) and did not withdraw the request for auction on the remaining L land (the Plaintiff withdrawn the request for auction on June 22, 2012), and the Defendant withdrawn the request for auction on May 23, 2012.