공사대금반환
1. Revocation of the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs freezing equipment, facilities and sales business.
B. B, around September 201, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entered into a provisional contract on behalf of the Defendant with the Defendant to enter into a contract with the Defendant for the installation of freezing equipment on a marina scheduled to be opened in Sinsi Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin (hereinafter “instant provisional contract”) under which the Defendant would enter into a contract on the construction cost of KRW 260,00,000.
C. On September 29, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,000,000 to the Defendant with the provisional contract deposit (hereinafter “instant provisional contract deposit”) pursuant to the said provisional contract. The Defendant received the request from B on the same day and paid KRW 21,00,000 to B.
B was reduced in January 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination on the instant provisional contract, and the details thereof, and the fact that the provisional contract deposit also has the nature of the rescission money stipulated in Article 565 of the Civil Act as a type of contract deposit, the mere fact that the instant contract was not concluded to seek the return of the provisional contract deposit is insufficient, and there are special circumstances, such as that the instant contract was not concluded due to the Defendant’s fault, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is specifically examined as follows.
A. The Plaintiff asserted as to the claim for rescission due to the non-performance of performance, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant provisional contract with the Defendant through the introduction of B, and directly paid KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant as the instant provisional contract amount. On January 2012, B notified the Plaintiff that C unilaterally cannot proceed with the construction work under the instant provisional contract by the Defendant who attempted to conceal the self-employment of the Plaintiff around January 2012.
Accordingly, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the provisional contract of this case on several occasions.