beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.28 2014나24725

양수금

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the facts is that "The following facts may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of pleadings in the witness A of the first instance court's testimony, unless there is no dispute between the parties, or the following facts are stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 2, 6 through 7 of the second judgment of the first instance."

Therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant asserts that the double lawsuit is unlawful since the Plaintiff already filed a separate lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of construction cost, including the electrical construction cost of KRW 250,000,000,000, which was executed by the Plaintiff, as the case of Incheon District Court 2012Gahap1760 (Seoul High Court 2013Na54507, which was pending in the appellate trial), the Defendant asserts to the effect that the part concerning the electrical construction cost of KRW 250,000 among the lawsuit in this case is the same as the above separate lawsuit and the subject-matter of lawsuit.

According to the evidence Nos. 6, 11-1, 11-1 and 13, the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff in Incheon District Court 2012Gahap1760 against the defendant is a lawsuit claiming the performance of the joint and several liability for the plaintiff of Hanin Construction as a joint and several surety for Hanin Construction. Thus, the above separate lawsuit is different from the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff in this case where the plaintiff claims the performance of the claim for the construction price of this case that he acquired from Eul. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the trust of lawsuit is that B transferred the instant claim for construction payment against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2012.