채무부존재확인 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding paragraphs 1 and 5 of the attached form. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion, ① the contents of each of the instant claims are excessively binding and limiting the plaintiffs' economic freedom or economic activities, thereby being null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, or ② each of the instant claims was made by the defendant's coercion, and thus, the delivery of a duplicate of complaint in this case is revoked. ③ Since each of the instant claims unilaterally limits the plaintiffs' business freedom, and thus, the parties subject to the restriction are subject to significant restrictions on the legal status of the plaintiffs due to the lack of the time limit, and such an agreement can be unilaterally revoked at any time, such agreement is revoked by the delivery of a duplicate of complaint in this case. ④ Paragraphs (1) and (5) of each of the instant claims in this case already implemented by the plaintiffs, and the remaining provisions stipulate the rights of the defendants in the event that the plaintiffs violated their obligations. The plaintiffs fulfilled all of the obligations in
Therefore, the Plaintiffs are arguing that the Defendant’s assertion of the validity of each of the instant forms of contracts does not have the obligation of the Plaintiffs under the instant respective forms of contracts, and seek the denial of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deeds based on the instant respective forms of contracts, and the Defendant collected clothes equivalent to KRW 22,298,000, which were displayed at the Plaintiffs’ stores without authority on May 27, 2012, and thus, sought compensation for the amount equivalent to the said price.
B. The following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the arguments, which are acknowledged prior to the invalidity of each of the instant arguments, have been operated by the Plaintiff A with the Defendant.