2. A. The Defendant Daewoo Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. pays to Plaintiff 1 (Plaintiffs in the Supreme Court Decision) 8,228,858 won with 5% interest per annum from May 25, 2004 to July 26, 2006, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. It is confirmed that there is no debt amount of KRW 11,718,702 under the installment financing agreement concluded between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. on July 22, 2002 and KRW 23,232,240 under the installment financing agreement concluded between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. on July 23, 2002.

3. The remainder of the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendants and the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant Samsungdong Sales Co., Ltd. and the remainder of the claim against the defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 is assessed against the plaintiff 40% among the parts arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2, and the part arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. is assessed against the above defendant.

5. The phrase “the second-A” can be provisionally executed.

A. Claim of the claim against the primary defendant Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Corporation

Defendant Daewoo Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff 1 21,318,340 won, 24,670,800 won to Plaintiff 2, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of May 24, 2004 to the day of complete payment.

(Plaintiffs withdrawn, at the trial, preliminary claims against Defendant Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd.)

B. Claim against Preliminary Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd.

(1) On July 22, 2002 between Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd and Plaintiff 1 (which appears to have been written in writing on July 22, 2002), confirmed that there was no KRW 19,947,560 due to installment financing agreement between Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd and Plaintiff 1 (which appears to have been written in writing on July 22, 2002), and there was no KRW 23,232,240 due to installment financing agreement between Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd and Plaintiff 2 on July 23, 2002;

(2) Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. shall pay 8,349,258 won to Plaintiff 1.

(3) Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs each amounting to KRW 5,00,000,000 as well as 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the above claim to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal by the defendant Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Corporation

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Daewoo Automobile Sales Corporation shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

3. The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the plaintiffs' loss against the defendant Daewoo Motor Sales Co., Ltd., the order of payment is revoked as follows. The defendant Daewoo Motor Co., Ltd. shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 5,00,000 won and each of its money at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of claim as of May 24, 2004 to the day of full payment (excluding the part of the claim for return of the sales contract in the judgment of the court of first instance).

A. On January 1, 1994, Nonparty 2 entered into a comprehensive agreement on the sales agency and post-management of a motor vehicle with the Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales”), with the content that Nonparty 2 would sell a motor vehicle on behalf of the Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales and receive the price from the customer and pay it to the Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales without delay. The Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales entered into the said comprehensive agreement with the Samsung Heavy Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Than Capital”) on the installment financing business with all of its domestic sales numbers and agencies located in the area under jurisdiction of the Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales. In addition, Nonparty 2 entered into the said comprehensive agreement on the sales of the motor vehicle with the Defendant Treatment Automobile Sales separately from the said comprehensive agreement on the sales of the motor vehicle. < Amended by Act No. 4768, Apr. 19, 199; Act No. 5035, Dec. 24, 199>

B. The plaintiffs entered into an automobile sales contract including the contents that the amount of money excluding the down payment of the vehicle price out of the vehicle price shall be paid by the Samsung Capital from the Samsung Capital, and at the same time between Samsung Capital and Samsung Capital, Samsung Capital shall pay the said amount to the defendant Samsung Capital for the sale of the automobile, and the plaintiffs entered into an installment financing contract with the terms that the plaintiffs shall pay the principal and interest in installments. The contents are as follows.

On July 22, 2002, July 23, 2002, the date of concluding the contract for the plaintiff 12, the purchaser of the ticket contained in the main text, the total amount of the installment to be paid 19,747,440,00 won for the monthly payment of KRW 19,840,000 for the principal of the loan of KRW 17,000,000 for the automobile price of the automobile of the automobile of the automobile of the automobile of the automobile of 19,840,000 on July 23, 2002, KRW 19,747,440,440 for the 23,232,240 for the installment period of KRW 36 months for the installment period of KRW 36 months.

B. Nonparty 1, upon entering into and implementing the said installment financing contract on behalf of the Plaintiffs, designated the account in the name of Nonparty 2 (the NongHyup Account omitted, and the said account was ordinarily used to receive vehicle fees from the buyer at the above agency) and deposited KRW 16,218,340 as of July 22, 2002, and KRW 19,370,80 as of July 24, 2002 for Plaintiff 2, respectively, in accordance with the said installment financing agreement and alliance agreement.

C. However, as above, Nonparty 1 withdrawn the vehicle price deposited in the account in the name of Nonparty 2 from Samsung Capital, and used it at will without depositing it in the Defendant’s vehicle sale, and the Defendant’s vehicle sale did not pay the vehicle price, and rejected the delivery of the vehicle despite the Plaintiffs’ peremptory notice.

The plaintiff 1 paid 8,228,858 won in total to Samsung Capital by November 28, 2003, and the plaintiff 2 refused to pay more installments to Samsung Capital on the ground that each of the above automobiles is not handed over without being paid at all.

D. Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Card”) merged on February 1, 2004 with Samsung Capital.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 1-2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-1-5, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap, 9, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence 5-2, 3, 8, 10, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 14-1 through 15-15, Eul evidence 16-1, 18-9, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-1, 2-1, and 3-1, non-party 1-3 witness of the court of first instance, testimony of the court of first instance (excluding the part which is not trusted after Non-party 1's testimony), Eul evidence 10-2, 10-3, Eul evidence 18-1, and testimony of the whole court of first instance, non-party 1-3 witness testimony of each court of first instance

[Net evidence or insufficient evidence] part of Eul evidence No. 19-10, fact-finding with Defendant Samsung Card Co., Ltd. of the court of the trial, part of Non-party 1's testimony of the first instance trial witness

2. Claim against the sale of the primary defendant's automobile;

A. Determination on this safety defense

(1) The above defendant asserts that the above decision became final and conclusive as it is, since both the plaintiffs and the above defendants did not raise an objection within a legitimate period against the decision that substituted the conciliation of May 18, 2006 by this court.

(2) On May 18, 2006, this Court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation to the effect that “1. Defendant Samsung Card shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 8,230,000 until June 12, 2006 between Plaintiff 1 and the Defendants, except paragraph (1), does not have any claim and liability relationship. 3. As to the instant case, it is confirmed that there is no claim and liability relationship between Plaintiff 1 and the Defendants.” Defendant Samsung Card raised an objection only within a lawful period for objection, and the fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendant Samsung Motor Vehicle sales did not raise an objection is clearly recorded in the record.

However, this case constitutes a subjective preliminary co-litigation stipulated in Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 70 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to such a lawsuit, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is an exception to the principle of independence of co-litigants. However, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the waiver or acceptance of a claim, settlement and withdrawal of a lawsuit.

If only the conjunctive defendant raises an objection against a decision substituting conciliation as in the instant case, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis, and a decision substituting the conciliation is not confirmed, and a decision substituting both the plaintiff, the surrounding and the conjunctive defendant shall be deemed to return to a lawsuit pursuant to Article 36 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act.

This is because, in a lawsuit involving participation by an independent party, the effect of objection against all the parties in the above cases is considered to have been effective (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da25901, 25918, May 26, 2005, regarding the recommendation of reconciliation). Subjective conjunctive co-litigations need to be consolidated and finalized in order to resolve a dispute that is legally incompatible without contradiction, so one judgment shall be held concurrently (see Articles 70(2) and 67 of the Civil Procedure Act), and there is a conflict of interest between the primary parties and the conjunctive parties, so it is similar to that of an independent co-litigation. Further, under the proviso of Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, "the waiver, acceptance, reconciliation and withdrawal of a lawsuit" should be interpreted as an exception to "the waiver of a claim, settlement and withdrawal of a lawsuit", and it is contrary to all the parties' voluntary intention to actively terminate the lawsuit, and it is not contrary to the purport of the judgment that it is not contrary to the purport of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant Samsung Motor Vehicle Sales.

B. Determination on default liability

(1) The Plaintiffs asserted that, even if Defendant Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales refused to deliver a vehicle in return for the payment of the vehicle price, the Plaintiff 1 breached the obligation under the above sales contract, and that the Plaintiff 1 suffered damages equivalent to KRW 16,218,340, which Samsung Capital paid to Defendant Daewoo Motor Sales, and that Plaintiff 2 suffered damages equivalent to KRW 19,370,800.

In regard to this, there is no entry into the above sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant Daewoo Motor Sales, and the installment payment deposited in the passbook with the non-party 2 cannot be deemed to have been paid the purchase price of the motor vehicle to the defendant Daewoo Motor Sales, and thus, the plaintiffs are responsible for the nonperformance of obligation. Thus, the defendant Daewoo Motor Sales further asserts to the purport that the plaintiffs are not liable for damages. Furthermore, since the plaintiffs may refuse to pay installments in accordance with the Act on Installment Transactions, they claim to the effect that the unpaid installment payment did not occur.

(2) According to the above facts, the defendant Samsung Card deposited the plaintiffs' vehicle price into the account under the name of the non-party 2 designated by the non-party 1, who is an employee of the agent of this case, according to the installment financing agreement with the plaintiffs, and thus, the plaintiffs performed the duty to pay the vehicle price for the defendant's automobile sales. Nevertheless, since the defendant Samsung Samsung Card sales did not deliver the above vehicles to the plaintiffs, it is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

(3) Furthermore, we examine the scope of the amount of damages to be paid by Defendant Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales.

Each of the instant sales contracts between the plaintiffs and the above defendants is an installment contract under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Installment Transactions Act, and the plaintiffs, the purchaser, may refuse to pay the installment to the defendant Samsung Card, the credit provider, pursuant to Article 12 (2) and (1) 2 of the same Act. In such cases, the purchaser's refusal of payment to the defendant Samsung Card is the remaining installment payments that the plaintiffs did not pay to the defendant Samsung Card (Article 12 (3) of the same Act) at the time of refusal of payment (Article 12 (3) of the same Act).

In full view of the above facts and the above legal provisions, since the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a duty to pay an installment to Samsung Card, they cannot be deemed to have suffered losses to that part. However, since 8,228,858 won paid by the plaintiff 1 to Samsung Card cannot be returned from Samsung Card, only the plaintiff 1 suffered losses equivalent to that amount.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff 1's assertion is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the argument is not acceptable, and all of the arguments by the plaintiff 2 cannot be accepted.

C. Determination on the claim of consolation money

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant Samsung Card paid the vehicle price normally, they refused to deliver the vehicle by denying all the facts, and caused the plaintiffs to pay the installments for the defendant Samsung Card in arrears, and as a result, the plaintiffs were registered as non-smoking entities and persons with bad credit standing and suffered severe mental suffering, so the defendant Samsung Heavy Motor Sales is obligated to pay the consolation money of KRW 5,000,000 to each of the plaintiffs.

According to the results of the fact-finding on the evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, and 16 and the Korea Federation of Credit Information Management Team of the first instance court, the Plaintiffs’ claim for consolation money may not be accepted in light of all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the fact that the Plaintiffs were registered as a credit bad dealer by Defendant Samsung Card on Jan. 2, 2003 due to the delinquency in payment of their loans. However, in the case of Plaintiff 1, the registration was immediately cancelled and deleted as long as they were registered as the bad credit holder, and in the case of Plaintiff 2, the claims for consolation money against the Plaintiffs cannot be accepted in light of all the circumstances indicated in the argument in the instant case.

3. Claim against the conjunctive Defendant Samsung Card

(1) First, we examine the part of the plaintiffs' claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the defendant Samsung Card.

The plaintiff 1's claim against the main defendant's automobile sales is not accepted for the reasons as seen earlier, and as long as the plaintiff 2's claim cannot be accepted all, the plaintiffs are deemed to have filed this preliminary claim against this part. Thus, the decision on this part is made.

As seen earlier, the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the installment to the defendant Samsung Card does not exist any longer, and considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence admitted earlier, since the balance of the installments that the plaintiff 1 did not pay is KRW 11,718,702, and the fact that the balance that the plaintiff 2 did not pay is 23,232,240 can be recognized, the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the installment to the defendant Samsung Card does not exist any longer.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff 1’s assertion is within the scope of recognition above, and all of the allegations by Plaintiff 2 are with merit.

(2) Next, insofar as Plaintiff 1’s claim for payment of KRW 8,349,258 against Defendant Samsung Card was accepted by the Health Team and the primary Defendant’s claim related to this part, this part of the claim, which appears to be sought in preparation for the case where the claim is dismissed, is dismissed without need to be determined.

(3) Lastly, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is examined as to the part of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, and this part of the plaintiffs' claim is rejected on the grounds of the above part as seen in the above part.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, as the above plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff 1 for the amount of KRW 8,228,858 and the amount of damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 24, 2004 to July 26, 2006, which is the day following the day when the copy of the application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim was served on the above defendant from May 24, 2004 to May 25, 2004, and from the day when the judgment was delivered to the above defendant (the above defendant's appeal is reasonable), and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Further, there is no obligation under the installment financing agreement concluded between the defendant Samsung Card and the plaintiff 1 as of July 22, 2002, and there is no debt between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 2.

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants against the defendants is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the plaintiff 1's defendants and the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant Samsung Card and the remaining claims against the defendant Samsung Card shall be dismissed, respectively, as there is no reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so unfair that part of the appeal against the defendant Samsung Samsung Motor Sales is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)