손해배상(기)
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.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 201, the Defendant exercised the right of retention on the building C in Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the claim for construction cost (hereinafter “claim for the instant construction cost”) under the contract for construction cost settlement (including the decision of correction of the protocol of protocol No. 2011Kaman85, the above court) as the secured claim as the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Dahap2351, the Defendant exercised the right of retention on October 201.
(hereinafter “the instant lien”). At that time, the Cheongju District Court, which sought confirmation of the absence of the instant lien against the Defendant, had been pending in the lawsuit No. 2011Kahap481 against the Cheongju District Court, where the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, sought confirmation of the absence of the instant lien.
(hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). (b)
Around October 201, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff used the name of wife I; hereinafter the Plaintiff) purchased the instant building and its site from the erode, and around that time, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant renounced the instant lien, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 350 million out of the amount, as down payment, to the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall perform the relevant contract irrespective of the pending litigation” (hereinafter “the first agreement”), and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as down payment.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant KRW 50 million”) C.
On December 15, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant first agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 350 million out of the down payment of KRW 350 million of the instant first agreement. D.
After that, on January 2013, the Plaintiff terminated the first agreement with H (the dispute as to whether there was a legitimate power of representation against H) representing the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant (the Defendant’s Cho Man-Ba, and as seen thereafter, there is a dispute as to whether there was a legitimate power of representation against H) and then, “D, etc.” is both the Defendant (H’s agency), D, E, F, and G.