채무부존재확인
1. The termination of the standard supply contract of goods on January 14, 2015 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a standard supply contract for goods (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant from February 1, 2015 to February 28, 2016, with a view to supplying mushrooms equivalent to KRW 172,540,00 (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff issued a surety insurance policy (securities number: B; hereinafter “instant surety insurance policy”) with a performance contract amounting to KRW 25,81,000 (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”).
B. After that, on December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, while terminating the instant supply contract, drafted a written confirmation of the balance that “I confirm that there is no balance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as of December 9, 2015 between the aforementioned transaction partners (the Plaintiff and the Defendant)” (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”).
C. Meanwhile, on January 28, 2016, the Defendant claimed KRW 25,881,000, insurance money under the instant guaranty insurance policy to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on the ground of the termination of the instant supply contract based on the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of contract. Accordingly, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance notified the Plaintiff of its submission of the Defendant’s written opinion on the Defendant’s claim by February 5, 2016, and the Plaintiff filed the instant principal lawsuit on April 11, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed that the termination of the instant supply contract would not have any obligation or obligation arising from the termination of the instant supply contract.
Therefore, there is no obligation to pay KRW 25,881,00 due to the termination of the supply contract of this case against the defendant.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion are terminated by the termination of the instant supply contract.