beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.
Reasons
In the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 154,119,523 in total and KRW 154,119,523 in total and KRW 101,953,721 in terms of the amount of loan, credit sales, retirement allowance, or the amount of transfer of business for business year 2017. The court of first instance accepted the above “amount of loan, credit sales, and retirement allowance claim,” and dismissed the above “amount of transfer of business for business year 2017, the amount of transfer of business, or the amount of transfer of business.”
As to this, the Defendant only appealed against the cited portion of the above loan, credit account sales, and retirement allowance claim, the subject of the judgment by this Court is limited to the above cited portion of the loan, credit account sales, and retirement allowance claim against the Defendant.
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (from No. 3 to No. 5) is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (from No. 3 to No. 5, No. 3), and thus, (b) this part is cited by the main text
Part 3, the "Defendant C" in Forms 5 through 6 shall be used to "Codefendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "C")", and not more than "Defendant C" shall be applied to "C", respectively.
Part 3, Part 6 "D" and similar "D" shall be applied to all "Defendant".
Part 3, "(the criteria for calculation of each customer and amount to be supplied to Defendant C and D are as shown in the attached Form; hereinafter "the contract of this case")" in Part 8 is "(the criteria for calculation of each customer and amount to be supplied to C and Defendant are as shown in the attached Form). However, although the same date has been set on December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff and C (Evidence 2-1) and the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the aforementioned separate document between evidence 2-5) concluded each business license agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and among them, "the business license agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was less than".