beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment below
According to its reasoning, the court below acknowledged that the contract of the instant partnership between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated, and maintained the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan and the damages for delay, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff within 20 months from the date of commencement of the sale of timber under the instant partnership agreement, but the Defendant agreed to immediately return the instant loan to the Plaintiff when the partnership agreement is terminated.
However, according to the records, the Defendant, through the preparatory brief, etc. as stated on July 10, 2015, as of the first day for pleading in the lower judgment, filed a defense against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for the settlement of KRW 2,051,059,059, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff in relation to the claim for the purchase price of the goods sold and acquired by the Defendant to Multilock Co., Ltd. under the instant contract, by setting up the claim for the settlement of KRW 2,051,059, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff as an automatic claim against the Plaintiff, in relation to the claim for the purchase price of the goods sold and acquired by the Defendant to Multilock Co., Ltd. under the instant contract.
Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether each of the above claims alleged by the defendant is recognized, and whether the plaintiff's loans of this case are offset against the plaintiff's loans of this case, and made a decision on the defendant's counterclaim of offset. However, the court below did not make any decision thereon
Therefore, the court below erred by omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds of appeal assigning this error.