beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.02.20 2018나2020727

공사대금 채권 일부 부존재 확인

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is deemed legitimate in view of the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even if they were to show each of the statements in the evidence No. 40-53 submitted

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is modified as follows, and the argument that the plaintiff A added to this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following "3. Additional Judgment", and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The 8th instance judgment of the first instance court stated that “ was 6,” and said judgment was “.”

B. There is no defendant's lien on real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 purchased by the plaintiff A in this case. It is assumed that the defendant's lien does not exist."

C. The court of first instance held that “a right of retention is sought” in the 8th 16-17th 17th e.g., “In this case, Plaintiff B shall seek confirmation that the secured claim shall not exceed KRW 10,000,000, not the Defendant’s right of retention itself, but the secured claim shall not exceed KRW 10,000.”

"42,466,00 won" in the 9th five parallel judgments of the first instance shall be "42,446,00 won".

E. Each 14th and 16th and 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be “the testimony of a witnessO” respectively as “the testimony of a witness of the court of first instance.”

F. The witness AB’s testimony at 6-7 at the bottom of the 19th judgment of the court of first instance is regarded as “the witness AB’s testimony”.

3. Additional determination

A. On January 28, 2010, Plaintiff A’s assertion received KRW 507,103,466 for the first subcontract payment of the instant construction from H to T’s account under the name of T, and transferred KRW 6,400,000 among them to D’s account on the same day, and immediately deposited the said money in the Defendant’s director AH account, and H again deposited the said money.