손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows.
2. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the dismissal is as follows from 8th to 16th 13th 10th 10th 16th 10.
1) As to the claim for the refund of value-added tax, Article 10(2) of the instant contract provides that the Defendant’s claim for the refund of value-added tax shall be transferred to the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant’s conclusion and seal of the instant contract shall be substituted by the transfer contract, and the Plaintiff and C shall also be given the authority to notify the transfer. The Defendant received the refund of value-added tax for the first half of the year 2016 from the Namcheon Tax Office (hereinafter “instant refund”) on August 25, 2016, but did not pay it to the Plaintiff or C even though it received the refund of value-added tax for the first half of the year 2016.
Since the claim for the refund of this case is divided in equal ratio between the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,474,305 (=92,948,610 x 1/2) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the refund of this case, and damages for delay from August 26, 2016, which is the day following the date of refund of this case.
Meanwhile, the Defendant is in the position of keeping the instant refund money for the Plaintiff and C as the transferor of the claim for refund of value-added tax to the Plaintiff and C.
The plaintiff's share of 46,474,305 won is not paid and embezzled, so the plaintiff should pay damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff.
2) Determination A) The claim relationship between multiple parties under the Civil Act is, in principle, a divided claim relationship, but where it is particularly indivisible upon the nature of the claim or the agreement between the parties, it shall be an indivisible claim relationship and Supreme Court Decision 90Da13628 delivered on October 27, 192.