선급금반환
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed in this Court against the Plaintiff.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasons why the court states this part of the basic facts are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense has the nature of the joint supply and demand organization of the contract of this case, which is composed of the defendant and two other companies (hereinafter "joint supply and demand organization of this case"), and thus, the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, even though the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the form of an essential co-litigation against all the members, against the defendant who is only one of the members
As seen later, the joint supply and demand company of this case is a joint supply and demand company under the Civil Act.
However, in a case where a partnership becomes an active party, in principle, the subject of a lawsuit is an essential co-litigation that must be determined jointly for all the union members. However, even if a partnership becomes a passive party, the health care room should determine whether the partnership constitutes an essential co-litigation, and at least a creditor of the partnership, not a joint liability for the union members with respect to each union member’s property, but a lawsuit for performance is instituted against each union member in a case where a partnership exercises the pertinent claim on the basis of each union member’s personal responsibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 1991). Thus, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant solely
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's main defense.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits was the cause of the principal claim, and ① the agreed service is not conducted without any justifiable reason due to the Defendant’s fault, and thus the contract of this case was rescinded in accordance with Article 12(1) of the instant contract.