2012Na6639 Preemptives

2012Na6646 (Consolidations) Amount of acquisition

2012Na6653 (Consolidations) Amount of acquisition

2012Na660 (Consolidations) Amount of acquisition

2012Na6677 (Consolidations) Amount of acquisition

2012Na6684 (Consolidations) Amount of acquisition

2012Na6691 (Consolidation) Amount of acquisition

S.C.

Law Firm A

1. B

Busan Shipping Daegu

2. C.

Busan Seo-gu

3. D;

Busan Seo-gu

4. E.

Busan Shipping Daegu

5. F;

Busan Southern-gu

Defendant 1 to 5 Law Firm G

6. H;

Busan Southern-gu

7. I

Busan Suwon-gu

Defendant 6 and 7 Law Firm J

Busan District Court Decision 2009Kahap3479, 2009Ga decided July 5, 2012

Joint 3486 (Consolidation), 2009, 3639 (Joint), 2009, 3554 (Joint), 2009 Ghana

Joint 3592 (Consolidation), 2009 Gohap4519 (Joint), 2009 Gohap4830 (Joint Judgment)

March 14, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. The part against Defendant B, C, D, F, H, and I in the judgment of the first instance, and each part against Defendant E in excess of the money ordered to be paid below, shall be revoked, and each of the claims against the Plaintiff corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

Defendant E shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,704,511 as well as 5% interest per annum from February 26, 2011 to April 11, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the remainder of Defendant E are dismissed, respectively.

3. The Plaintiff and Defendant B, C, D, F, H, and I shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant E, and the Plaintiff shall bear 90% of the total costs of the lawsuit incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant E, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, as to KRW 25,984, 893, and KRW 12,60,00 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B, as to KRW 25,984,89.

5. From December 21, 2009 to 13, 384, and 893 won, and from December 21, 209 to 22, 174, and 354 won, and

With respect to KRW 75,00 from December 11, 2009, KRW 22,09, and KRW 354 from June 29, 2010:

③ As regards Defendant D’s KRW 26,039, 505 and its KRW 80,00 among them, from October 23, 2009:

25, 959, 505 won from December 22, 2009; and 4 Defendant E shall be 60,322,835 won and its importance

24, 230,00 won from March 20, 201, 36, 092, and 835 won from February 26, 2011:

⑤ As regards Defendant F, 24, 553, 071 won and its 140, and 00 won, from January 28, 2010:

24, 413, 071 won from March 27, 2010; and 6 Defendant H from March 52, 264, 123 won and its importance

70,00 won from March 20, 201; 52, 194; and 123 won from August 13, 2011; 7

Defendant I shall pay for KRW 27,572,016 among them and KRW 70,00,000 from March 20, 2010, KRW 27,562,016

C. From January 7, 2011 to January 13, 2012, each of the instant claims and applications for correction of reasons

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment until the date of service of a duplicate

L. D. Payment of money.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff;

The cancellation of each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order of payment below

Defendant B, as to KRW 8,495,784, and KRW 7,560,00 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B, as to KRW 8,495,784.

5. From December 21, 2009 to 935, 784 won, and from December 21, 2009 to 2, Defendant C is 11, 558, 238 won and 238 won, among them;

75,00 won, from December 11, 2009, from 11, 483, and 238 won, from June 29, 201 to 3,

Defendant D shall have respect to KRW 16,602, 556 among them, and KRW 80,000 from October 23, 2009, KRW 16,522,556

From December 22, 2009, 4 from Defendant E, 16, 645,060 won and 14, 529,00 won among them.

As regards March 20, 2010, 2, 116, and 060 won, from February 26, 2011, and 5 Defendant F

16, 340, 214 won and its 140 among them, and 00 won from January 28, 2010, 16, 200, 214

from March 27, 2010, and 6 Defendant H 25, 179, 698, and 70,000 won among them.

3. From 20. to 25.1, 109, and 698 won: from August 13, 2011; and 7 Defendant I, from August 13, 201, 11, 041, 101; and

Of them, 70,00 won from March 20, 201, 10, 971, and 101 won on January 7, 2011

ter 5% per annum until July 5, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

D. The payment of such money is made.

B. The Defendants

1) Defendant B, C, D, F, H, I

It is identical to the above defendants under Paragraph (1) of this Article.

2) Defendant E.

The part against the above defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's office corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

The Gu is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Unaccompanied General Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "unaccompanied") is an executor who newly constructed and sold an apartment house of the scale of 3,000 units on the ground of a square registry of the area of 169,840 square meters and 169,840 square meters, Nam-gu, Busan. The plaintiff is a contractor who was awarded a contract for the construction of the apartment of this case from unaccompanied. The plaintiff is a contractor who was awarded a contract for the construction of the apartment of this case.

B. The Defendants entered into a contract for the sale of each of the above units and units of the apartment units as listed below in the table, or for the succession of the status of the purchaser from the previous buyer on the date of the sale contract or the date of the contract acceptance (hereinafter “each of the sale contracts in this case”). Meanwhile, on August 27, 2006, Defendant F entered into a contract with the above Defendant under which it would make an option construction for the apartment unit sold in lots and pay the price thereof (hereinafter “instant option contract”).

C. At the time of each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendants agreed to pay the remainder at the time of occupancy: (i) the first down payment with about 5% of the sales price and the second down payment with about 10% of the sales price or 15% of the sales price; (ii) the intermediate payment with 60% or 65% of the sales price and six times in installments (in the case of 60% of the sales price, it shall be divided by 10% per one time, and in the case of 65%, it shall be divided by 5% and the remainder by 15%); and (iii) the remainder was paid at the time of occupancy. The main contents of each of the instant sales contracts and the instant options contracts are as follows.

[each of the sales contracts in this case] The implementer without delay refers to "A", and the purchaser "B" enters into an apartment supply contract between "A and B" as follows.

Article 1 (Methods for Supply Prices and Payment)

3. From the total sale amount, 50% of the total sum of 10% of the down payment and the total of 10% of the first and fourth intermediate payments are the interest payment system in which Party A mediates loans to Party B and pays the remainder and the interest on loans together at the time of occupancy.

4. Interest from an intermediate payment to be loaned shall be paid by Party A, and the period shall be until the commencement date of designation of occupancy.

Article 2 (Cancellation of Contracts)

1.A shall, when a Party B has committed any of the following acts, cancel this Agreement immediately after the peremptory notice has been given, in the absence of such performance:

2) If the bank fails to pay the financial costs arising from any balance and interest late payment within three months after the date at which the occupancy is designated;

3.B may rescind this Agreement if it is not possible to move into within three months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to reasons attributable to A.

Article 3 (Penalty)

1. Where this contract is terminated for reasons falling under any of subparagraphs 1 through 7 of Article 2, 10% of the total amount of the sale price shall be reverted to A as penalty. In this case, the responsibility for the settlement of financial expenses following the part payment system after interest payment is also attributable to B.

2. When this contract has been terminated for reasons falling under paragraph 3 of Article 2, A shall pay to B 10% of the total amount of the sale price as penalty.

3. In the case of paragraphs 1 and 2, Gap shall refund to Eul the already paid price plus an annual interest equivalent to 3% per annum from the date of receipt to the date of return, respectively.

The supplier (Plaintiff) called “A” and “B” (contractor) shall enter into a supply contract as follows:

Article 4(3) When an apartment contract is terminated, this contract shall also be rescinded.

Article 5 (Penalty) (1) When this contract is terminated due to any cause attributable to the Party A, the amount equivalent to 10% of the total supply price shall be reverted to Party A as penalty.

3) When this contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to A, A shall pay B the amount equivalent to 10% of the sales proceeds as penalty.

D. Under each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendants received the down payment and intermediate payment from the financial institutions that lent the sales price to the Defendants with or without a joint and several sureties as listed below (hereinafter “self-payment”, and the Plaintiff received the money directly received from the Defendants from Defendant F on August 30, 2006, out of the option contract price of this case, KRW 1,452,00 (hereinafter “observer”) out of the options contract price of this case.

E. Upon completion of the apartment building of this case, Song sent notified the Defendants on August 27, 2008 as the commencement date of the designation of occupancy of the apartment building of this case. On November 27, 2008, in order to secure the obligation for the construction cost, etc. due to the construction of the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer to the Plaintiff all the rights at present or over the future, including the right to claim the payment of penalty, the right to claim the damages, and all other rights to claim the payment of money (hereinafter “transfer contract of this case”).

F. On June 12, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiff that all rights under each of the instant sales contracts were transferred to the Defendants.

G. Afterwards, the Plaintiff and the Defendants asked the Defendants to pay interest on the balance of sale and loans on several occasions, but the Defendants did not pay such interest. As to Defendant B, December 2009.

4. On December 10, 2009, with respect to Defendant C, on October 22, 2009 for Defendant D, on March 19, 2010 for Defendant E, H, and I, and on January 27, 2010 for Defendant F, each of the instant sales contracts was cancelled on the grounds that each of the Defendants’ respective Defendants’ interest on loans and the remainder of the sales price were paid, and notified at that time.

H. Around that time, the Defendants subrogated for a loan to a financial institution that borrowed down payment and intermediate payment, and the interest on the loan was also subrogated as indicated below.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including any number other than a particular number), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, each of the financial transaction information meetings against the first instance court, the National Bank of Korea, NFFFC, and the Korea Cmat Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff;

1) Each of the instant sales contracts was cancelled due to the Defendants’ failure to pay the remainder of the sales contract and the interest on loan. The Plaintiff was transferred the claim for indemnity from the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts through the instant transfer contract, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of unpaid penalty (the amount obtained by deducting the Defendants’ self-payment from the agreed penalty) and the interest on substitute payment (the agreed penalty). However, since the amount of refund without payment due to the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts, 3% annual refund interest under Article 3(3) of the instant sales contract for the remainder other than the penalty belonging to the Plaintiff, out of the sales price received from the Defendants and financial institutions, the Defendants are obligated to refund the Defendants the remainder after deducting the refund interest.

B. The Defendants (Defendant 1) received a comprehensive notification of the transfer of rights from the Plaintiff on June 12, 2009, and did not receive the notification of the transfer of penalty and the claim for indemnity from the transferor, and even if the notification of the transfer was made, the Defendants notified the transfer of rights to the Defendants.

6. On December 12, 200, since the penalty and the claim for indemnity against the Defendants without payment against the Plaintiff was not established, the Plaintiff cannot claim for the transfer money. The sales contract of this case was terminated due to the causes attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, at least the Plaintiff, and the Defendants were terminated due to causes attributable to both the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants are not liable to pay the penalty. (A) The Plaintiff and the Defendants are not liable to pay the penalty to the buyers of this case including the Defendants at the time of the sale of the apartment of this case, even though they advertised that the construction of the apartment of this case was completed in front of the apartment complex before the occupancy, and the opening of the light metal connected to the apartment of this case from the Gisung and the Gisung by the Busan subway 200 to the Busan subway 2010 to the apartment of this case, the construction plan of the light metal was not completed until now, and there was no specific progress in the construction plan of the light metal.

B) Even if the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the obligation or the intention of deception is not recognized, the Defendants, who are the buyers, shall be entitled to refuse the performance of their obligations until a reasonable condition is satisfied to believe that they would be able to use the facilities, such as a marine park and a light rail, etc.;

In other words, there is a right to withhold the payment of the purchase price by exercising the right of defense. 3) Even if each contract for sale in this case was cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendants, and there is a duty to pay the penalty to the defendants, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's advertisement and publicity are false and exaggerated advertisements that are likely to undermine fair trade order as they are labeling and advertising acts that are likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and they constitute false and exaggerated advertisements that are likely to undermine fair trade order, as well as cases where specific facts about important matters in apartment transactions are falsely notified to the extent that they can be criticized in light of the duty of good faith. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for penalty

4) As long as each of the instant sales contracts has been cancelled, non-transmission shall return interest on the sales price (including self-payment and loan reserves, and options in the case of Defendant F) received from the Defendants to the Defendants. In addition, where the Plaintiff’s claim for penalty is not accepted, the Plaintiff shall return the money to the Defendants (including options in the case of Defendant F). Thus, the Plaintiff shall offset the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants by the refund interest claim and the claim for refund of self-payment.

3. Determination

A. The validity of the assignment of claims and the existence of a legitimate notification of transfer) The basic claim relationship at the time of the transfer becomes final and conclusive to some extent, and the right can be specified and the transfer can be made if it is expected to substantially occur in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da7932, Jul. 30, 1996). He returned to the instant case and health class, as recognized earlier, the Defendants did not pay the remainder of the sale and the loan interest after August 27, 2008, which is the starting date of the designation of occupancy, and the Defendants did not pay the remainder of the sale and the loan interest even in the renewed peremptory notice with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the non-transmission notified the cancellation of each sale contract from around 2009.

In addition to these circumstances, the above legal principles are as follows: (a) the claim for penalty and indemnity interest against the Defendants without payment against the Defendants was not practically incurred at the time of November 27, 2008 when the transfer contract of this case was concluded; (b) however, as the basic claim relationship became final and conclusive to a certain extent and thus, it is expected that the right will be specified and that it will be generated in the near future. Therefore, the transfer can be made.

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the non-transmission at the time of the transfer contract of this case may be acknowledged as entrusting the plaintiff with the power of notifying the buyer of the assignment of claims in relation to the transfer contract of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff transferred the plaintiff with all rights to defendant F on May 13, 2009, and the remaining defendants on June 12, 2009 to the plaintiff, and the right subject to the transfer includes the claim for penalty arising when the contract of this case expires."

According to the above facts, around June 12, 2009, the plaintiff is deemed to have notified the defendants of the transfer of the penalty and the claim for indemnity on behalf of the transferor, who is a legitimate transferor, on behalf of the transferor.

B. The defendants' penalty and interest payment duty 1) . The defendants delayed payment duty of the remaining amount and interest payment duty of the defendants, and notified the plaintiff and the defendants of the cancellation of each contract of this case on the grounds of this without delay, and they reached the defendants. Thus, each contract of this case is legally cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendants (the contract of this case is deemed to have been cancelled upon the cancellation of each contract of this case under Article 4 (3) of the options contract of this case). Meanwhile, since the contract of this case is cancelled and the contract of this case becomes effective due to the cancellation and termination of each contract of this case, the contract of this case was transferred to the plaintiff through the transfer contract of this case 0% of the total amount of the contract of this case 10% of the total amount of the non-payment of the contract of this case after the cancellation of each contract of this case and the contract of this case from the defendant's non-payment with 10% of the penalty for breach of contract of this case which is the defendant's non-payment contract of this case.

2) The Defendants asserted that each of the instant sales contracts was cancelled or cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance or fraudulent act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the contents of the sales contract in this case’s agreement were the contents of each of the instant sales contract, or that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had the intent to deception the buyers, including the Defendants, were the contents of each of the instant sales contract, and that the marine park was completed prior to the occupancy of the instant apartment, and that the Plaintiff’s establishment was opened by 2010, and that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were able to use the relevant facilities. Therefore, this part of

B) The Defendants asserted that there is an unstable defense right to withhold the payment of the sale price to the Defendants. Thus, Article 536(2) of the Civil Act provides that when one of the parties has to perform first to the other party, if there is a substantial reason to make it difficult for the other party to do so, he may refuse the other party to perform his obligation until the other party performs his obligation. However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to prove that the completion of the marine park or the opening of the light rail, etc. of the sale contract in this case was the contents of each of the sales contract in this case. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on each of the instant sales contracts under the premise that they are liable to complete the construction of the marine park or the opening of the light rail rail, etc. is without merit.

C) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for penalty is not permissible as it violates the principle of good faith or the principle of equity. Thus, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff and without fault, even though it was not clear that the installation details and accurate completion date of the marine park at the time of the sale of the instant apartment, and the possibility of the light railing business was not clear, etc., the Plaintiff’s sale of the instant apartment, including the Defendants, was exaggeratedly involved in its feasibility, etc., to the buyers of the instant apartment, as well as the construction of the front marine park, and the completion of the construction of the front marine park at the time of the occupancy of the apartment complex at the time of the purchase of the apartment complex at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the apartment complex at the time of Busan subway 2010 and the opening of the light railing and advertising connected to the instant apartment at the time of Busan subway 201 in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and without faulting, etc., as well as to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 10101. in Busan High Court.

(6) The Plaintiff and the Defendants were liable for damages equivalent to 5% of the sales price to the buyers who maintained the sales contract, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendants exaggerated advertising and publicity were not possible, and that such sales contract constitutes a false notification of important facts in light of the good faith duty. (2) Unlike the opening of light metal, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to complete the construction of the marine park at the time of the completion of the occupancy of the apartment complex. The Plaintiff did not start the construction of the marine park at the time of the completion of the construction of the apartment complex, and there is no longer business progress related to the marine park as of the date of the closing of argument, and there is no specific plan for the construction of the marine park. (3) Although the Defendants were the buyers of the apartment complex at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract at the time of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract at the time of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract at the time of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract at the time of the contract at the time of the above.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is justified.

3) Ultimately, the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is limited to the interest rate paid in lieu of the Plaintiff.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion of set-off

1) As a result of the cancellation of each contract for sale in this case, the non-transmission is to be returned to the Defendants the sum of the self-payment funds received by the Defendants (in the case of Defendant F, including option funds) and the interest and loan repayment funds from the date of receipt to the date of receipt. However, as seen earlier, Article 3(3) of each contract for sale in this case provides that the interest rate on the refund of the purchase price shall be 3% per annum. Thus, the non-payment is to be made by the Defendants (in the case of Defendant F, including option funds) and the refund interest calculated at a rate of 3% per annum from the date of receipt to the date of repayment to the date of repayment to the Defendants, and the refund interest calculated at a rate of 3% per annum from the date of receipt to the date of repayment to the date of repayment to the date of refund to the Defendants.

B) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the rate of refund interest under Article 3(3) of the sales contract of this case is set at 3% per annum, which is less than 5% per annum as interest under the Civil Act, and thus, it is not permissible under the principle of fairness as it violates the duty to specify and explain under the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act, and thus, it cannot be incorporated into the contents of the contract or is null and void as it constitutes a clause of a contract which is not in violation of the principle

However, the interest rate on the refund of the sale price of this case is not only when the contract of this case is cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, but also when the contract of this case is cancelled due to the plaintiff's causes attributable to the plaintiff. ② Article 379 of the Civil Act provides that the interest rate on the bonds with interest shall be 5% per annum unless otherwise provided by other Acts or agreed by the parties. However, the above provision does not take precedence over the other party's agreement. ③ The interest rate on the refund of the sale price of this case is less than 5% per annum applied in the absence of agreement pursuant to Article 379 of the Civil Act. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the terms and conditions of the contract of this case are unreasonably unfavorable to the plaintiff or unaccompanied, ④ It is insufficient to view that the terms and conditions of the contract of this case are somewhat unfavorable to the customer, and it is difficult for the business operator to find that the agreement of this case unfairly violated the principle of fairness and interest rate for the sale contract of this case to the customer, and it is difficult for the defendants to recognize that it unfairly violated the above 3% interest on behalf of the seller.

In addition, when a business operator enters into a contract with a customer by using terms and conditions, it is obligated to provide the customer with an opportunity to know the terms and conditions in a generally anticipated manner according to the type of the contract, and explain the important contents of the terms and conditions to the customer so that the customer can understand them. However, the important contents of the duty to explain here refer to the matters that the customer may directly affect the conclusion of the contract or the determination of the price in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 6, 2008, etc.). It is difficult to see that the contents of the interest rate refunded for the sale price of this case are important matters that may directly affect the conclusion of the contract or the determination of the price.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

2) Amount of money to be paid by the Defendants after offsetting

In light of the above facts, the Defendants’ self-payment and its refund interest claim, and interest claim on loan (in the case of Defendant F, including option payment and its refund interest claim) were due at the time of the cancellation of each of the instant sales contract by the Plaintiff and B, and the Plaintiff’s substitute interest claim also arrived at the due date of each of the instant sales contract by the Plaintiff and B, D, E, and F, and there was a set-off in which both claims of the Plaintiff and the Defendants have arrived at the due date of each of the substitute payment. However, it is evident that Defendant B, C, D, E, and F have reached each of the instant preparatory documents on October 14, 201, stating that the Plaintiff would offset their own payment, its refund interest claim, the refund interest claim, and the Plaintiff’s substitute interest claim against the loan, and the Plaintiff’s substitute interest and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff on October 14, 201, and the Plaintiff’s intent to set-off each of the instant preparatory documents on October 20, 2011.

Therefore, upon the Defendants’ declaration of set-off, the Plaintiff’s substitute interest claim was terminated within the extent equivalent to the above amount of the Defendant’s claim retroactively to the date of each subrogation, which is set-off (for convenience, the Plaintiff’s substitute interest was deducted from the Plaintiff’s refund interest on the amount of self-payment and the amount of interest on the loan appropriation, and then the remainder of the remainder of the overdue interest claim shall be calculated by offsetting the amount of the Defendants’ self-payment and options on the amount equal to the amount of the amount of the Plaintiff’s self-payment and options. However, the detailed calculation of the interest on the refund of the self-payment and the loan appropriation shall be as indicated in the following table: (i) the Plaintiff’s calculation of the amount of interest on the refund of the self-payment and loan appropriation shall be the same as indicated in the attached Table); (ii) the Plaintiff’s Defendant B, C, D, F, H, and I’s substitute interest claim is extinguished; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s substitute interest claim against Defendant E remains in KRW 4,704

Ultimately, Defendant B, C, D, F, H, and I’s assertion of set-off is with merit, and Defendant E’s assertion of set-off is with merit within the scope of the above recognition.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, among the Defendants, Defendant E is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,704,511 as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act until April 11, 2013, which is the date of the adjudication of the court of the first instance, which is deemed reasonable for the said Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff from February 26, 201, following the date of the set-off.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant E shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul, C, D, F, H, and I shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with the conclusion, the part against the defendant Eul in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Eul and the part against the defendant Eul in excess of the above decision ordering payment, and the part against the defendant Eul in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Eul shall be revoked, and each plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the remaining appeal against the defendant Eul shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per

Judges Shin Jae-soo

Applicable Mutatis Mutandis to judge gambling

Judges and worships

Details of calculation (if the calculation is less than won);

1. Defendant B;

(1) 10,00,000 won ¡¿ [4 + 59/365 = from October 24, 2005 to December 21, 2009] x 0. 03 =

1,248,493 won

(2) 2, 600,000 won ¡¿ [4 + 34/365 = from November 18, 2005 to December 21, 2009] x 0. 03 =

319, 265 won

(3) 25, 200,000 won ¡¿ [4 + 31/365 = from November 21, 2005 to December 21, 2009] ¡¿ 03 =

3,088, 208 won

(4) 25, 200,000 won ¡¿ [3 + 246/365 = from April 20, 2006 to December 21, 2009] ¡¿ 03 =

2, 77, 523 won

(5) 25, 200,000 won ¡¿ [3 + 93/365 = from September 20, 2006 to December 21, 2009] x 0. 03 =

2, 460, 624

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.