채무부존재확인
1. The part of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 25, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a M-sports B agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of mortgage of each of the instant neighboring real estate”) on August 19, 201 and November 7, 2012 with respect to the first, second, and third real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff on August 19, 201 in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation arising out of the said contract.
B. The contractual relationship between the defendant and the agent is between the consignment transaction and the private transaction.
The consignment transaction method is to deposit only the supply price for the goods sold by the owner to consumers among the goods supplied by the Defendant, and to return all the goods which have not been sold to the Defendant.
A private transaction method can be returned by the owner of the goods supplied by the defendant to the extent agreed upon among the goods supplied by the defendant, and the remainder shall be paid to the defendant without relation to whether the goods are sold or not.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 3, witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The instant agency contract, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s principal claim, was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on March 10, 2014, based on the Defendant’s unilateral suspension of supply of goods, as a consignment transaction method.
The Plaintiff’s supply price for the goods sold has already been paid to the Defendant, and the remaining goods are returned in full, so there is no Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Defendant under the instant agency contract.
Nevertheless, the Defendant demanded the payment of KRW 227,83,612 as the above goods-price obligation. Therefore, the Defendant seeks confirmation of the absence of the above obligation and seek cancellation of the registration of establishment of each of the instant units established to secure the above obligation.