어대금반환
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 2,800,000 as well as the full payment from October 1, 2015.
1. Judgment as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits
A. The party who entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of fish is not the Plaintiff, but the “C” or the “fisheries of the nature of the corporation.”
Therefore, the plaintiff is not a party to the lawsuit and is not a party to the lawsuit.
Ultimately, the principal lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful.
B. In a lawsuit for the performance of the market, the standing to be a party is the person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not shall be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005). As long as the plaintiff claims the right to demand the payment of goods against the defendant, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have the standing to be a party to
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. On June 9, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied 80 km to the Defendant on June 9, 2015 that the Plaintiff supplied 35,000 won per kilogram does not conflict between the parties.
(1) At the first date for pleading, the Defendant: (a) led to the confession that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were parties to the contract, but at the fourth date for pleading, the Defendant asserted that the parties to the contract were “C” at the same time; and (b) reversed the “fisheries of the nature of the stock company.” However, as to the fact that the said confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, it is insufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of each description of evidence No. 9-6 and No. 8; (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; (d) the revocation of confession is not effective. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 1, the “C” is limited to the name of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the “natural fisheries of the stock company” was established on March 17, 2015, and cannot be a party to the direct sales contract with the Defendant on February 9, 2015.
3.2