물품대금 반환 청구의 소
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Company B and Defendant C jointly and severally liable for KRW 62,500,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Determination on the main claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a contract for goods supply and investment with the content that Defendant B would supply actual containers to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2015; thereafter, the Plaintiff and Defendant B decided to terminate the contract; and Defendant B returned the amount of KRW 62,50,000 paid by the Plaintiff on May 31, 2015; and in installments, the amount of KRW 20 million on June 30, 2015; and KRW 22,50,000,000,000 won on July 31, 2015; and in this case, the fact that Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability for the return of money to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the said joint and several liability was against the Plaintiff.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 62,50,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion is as follows. The Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the instant contract and attempted to recover funds when conflict arises between D director and the Plaintiff’s representative director, a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s side of the instant contract. In the process, the Defendants heard from D director of the Plaintiff Company that “the Plaintiff would cause a conflict,” and prepared a written statement of evidence No. 2. As such, there is no validity of the Plaintiff Company’s declaration of intention to return money. Accordingly, there is no evidence to deem the Defendants’ declaration of intention as a true declaration of intention, not a true declaration of intention. Even if the Defendants’ declaration of intention is not a true declaration, it becomes effective in principle, but only if the other party knew or could have known that it was not a true declaration (Article 107 of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was aware or could have known that it was not a true declaration).
Therefore, the defendants.