채무부존재확인
1.The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of any of the following matters, as stated in paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420
[The part to be deleted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance] The part to "e.g. theory of lawsuit" and "4. conclusion" (No. 13 of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance and no. 12 of the judgment
2. Supplement of judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is not a party to the heating and cooling construction contract of this case is the party who actually entered into a contract for the heating and cooling construction of this case with the plaintiff's consent or under the lead of the defendant. In other words, in accordance with the agreement with the defendant, Eul performed the heating and cooling construction of this case in accordance with the drawing and estimate prepared by Eul through consultation with the defendant and submitted to the defendant, and there was no profit in relation to the part of the heating and cooling construction of this case, and the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to issue the performance guarantee insurance policy (payment guarantee policy) to the plaintiff who is a subcontractor under the name of Eul, but the plaintiff rejected it, unless the above contract between the plaintiff and E is formal, it is the party to the contract between the two parties (Article 3 (1) of the Evidence No. 12 of this case, "the plaintiff received 100% of the total construction price guarantee bond from the guarantee agency, and presented it to E" without the plaintiff's refusal.
In addition, the delivery by the plaintiff to E of KRW 18 million which he received from the defendant at the early stage is due to the fact that the defendant demanded such a processing method.