물품대금
1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.
3...
1. In a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, if an appeal is filed against any of the main co-litigants and the conjunctive co-litigants, the part of the appeal against the other co-litigants shall be transferred to the appellate court. In such a case, the subject of the appellate court’s judgment shall be determined by taking into account the necessity of the unity of conclusion between the main and preliminary co-litigants and their parties.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355 Decided February 24, 2011). We examine in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.
In the instant case, the primary claim against Defendant A and B and the conjunctive claim against Defendant C are in a relationship in which both claims cannot be accepted in accordance with the determination of the parties to the alcoholic beverage supply contract, or the reasons for the determination of either claim are affected by the reasons for the determination of the other claim, and the process of determination of each claim is inevitably mutually combined. Therefore, it is recognized that all parties need to make a joint conclusion.
Therefore, even if only Defendant C filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, the main claim against Defendant A and B and the ancillary claim against Defendant C are blocked with confirmation and they are transferred to this court and are subject to adjudication. Therefore, the main claim against Defendant A and B and the ancillary claim against Defendant C are determined in entirety.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a change in accordance with paragraph 3 below.
3. The modified part
A. Part 1 of the decision of the court of first instance changes from Part 3 to Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance as follows.
From September 3, 2012, the E branch office in this case was virtually closed to the owner of the business.