1. The Court rendered a counterclaim among the judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim added and reduced in the court.

1. The first instance court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits, and the part on the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits was excluded from the object of this court’s judgment.

On the other hand, with respect to the defendant's counterclaim claim seeking KRW 58,200,000, which was lent to the plaintiff, the first instance court acknowledged the occurrence of the above loan claim, and accepted the plaintiff's counterclaim that the defendant used KRW 18,115,000 out of the sale price of the vehicle to inflict damages equivalent to the above amount on the plaintiff, and rejected the other defendant's counterclaim claim.

Therefore, while only the defendant appealed against the part of the counterclaim claim, the plaintiff asserts that there is no benefit in the appeal on the premise that the defendant appealed against the part of the counterclaim claim, but it is obvious that the scope of the defendant's appeal is limited to the part against the counterclaim claim.

(1) On August 20, 2018, the grounds of appeal on August 20, 2018, and on November 13, 2018, the claims for the counterclaim and the applications for change of the causes of the counterclaim are filed. This court added the claims for the transfer of business to the counterclaim.

Therefore, the issue of the occurrence of the above loan claims recognized by the first instance court was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da51205 Decided October 13, 2011). Ultimately, the scope of adjudication by this Court is limited to a counterclaim for the transfer of business, which the Defendant added to this court, and the validity of the Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

2. Determination on the defendant's counterclaim for payment for business transfer

A. While the Defendant was engaged in the business of selling extract, etc. from the trade name of “E” via the Internet, it concluded a partnership agreement with the joint Plaintiff A (hereinafter “A”) of the first instance court on February 12, 2014, and “where the Defendant establishes a corporation for the purpose of running the F business, A shall enter into the partnership agreement with the said corporation with the same content as the above partnership agreement, and the Defendant is above.