beta
Text
1. Defendant C and Defendant Co., Ltd. in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below among the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the parties, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined. The reasoning for this case presented by the court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or additional or supplementary judgment is determined as follows. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance
2. Parts to be used or added or supplementally determined;
(a) “1. Basic Facts” is 1. The table at the fifth bottom of the judgment of the first instance shall be modified to the following table: 297,629,629,640,647,47,000 264,800 39,522,000 172,872,872,872,000 885,416,000 38,921,262,000 362,002,002,000 14,702,002,002,002,002,002,002,002,09,009,640,649,640,305,309,405,0000 38,405,407,509,509,000
[Ground for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 3 through 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22 through 25, 27 through 30, and Eul's evidence 2 through 5 (including a branch number for those with a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2) Each entry, the result of the first instance court appraiser F’s appraisal, the result of each request for the supplementation and supplementation of appraiser F by the first instance court’s appraiser F, the result of the fact inquiry and the purport of all pleadings of this court’s first instance appraiser F
B. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding “4. Determination as to the argument regarding the validity of the assignment notification of claims by Defendant C” is modified from 10 to 14 as follows.
“Influence, the Defendant asserts that a total of 116 households had exceeded the exclusion period. Of them, 24 households excluded the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the remainder of 92 households (i.e., 16 households - 24 households) as seen earlier.