채무부존재확인
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Upon receipt of the Defendant’s request for procurement from the Defendant’s Intervenor via the Public Procurement Service, the Defendant published the tender on August 3, 201 with respect to “Cheongcheon Air Detection detection Equipment (LADR, hereinafter “”)”.
B. On December 21, 2011, the Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder on the same month. On the 28th of the same month, the Plaintiff entered into a procurement contract (hereinafter “instant procurement contract”) with the Defendant, each of which the procuring entity as the Defendant’s Intervenor, the contractor as the Plaintiff, the supplier as the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the French Company as Ethiopia SAS (hereinafter “Lesphere SS”). According to the said procurement contract, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2,593,80 to Ethiopia, and received KRW 951,940,00 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the amount equivalent to 10% of the above price was determined as the contract deposit.
C. On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract for performance of contract deposit (contract) with the Defendant as the insured, the purchase amount of the insurance amount as 95,194,000 between Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and the Defendant. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for performance guarantee of contract deposit with 259,380 square meters, and submitted the insurance policy to each of the Defendant.
Lesiopia shipped L around March 2013, and the Plaintiff is D in the Kimpo Airport and Jeju Airport from March 2013 to April 2013.
1 sets up 1 sets, but the Defendant’s Intervenor who inspected and inspected it received notice of inappropriate (1 and 2) from the Defendant’s Intervenor, and received notice of withholding (3rd) after supplementation.
E. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant claiming the price of goods by asserting that the contract performance was completed as a result of objection, but the defendant's claim against the defendant cannot be viewed as the principal agent for the payment of the price of goods.