beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: "Defendant A" among the descriptions in the "1. premised facts" column for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Codefendant A of the court of first instance"; "Defendant Han-Jin case" as "Defendant Han-Jin case"; and "Defendant Han-Jin case Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance" as "Defendant Han-Jin case of the court of second instance" as "Defendant Han-Jin case
It is identical to the description in the corresponding part other than that of "the defendant", thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that B has a claim for the agreed amount against the Defendant under the agreement dated June 1, 2009 and the agreement dated April 5, 2011, and that the Plaintiff seized B’s claim for the agreed amount against B as a disposition on default on national taxes in arrears under the National Tax Collection Act and notified the Defendant thereof, the Defendant asserts that B shall pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim among the national taxes in arrears under the National Tax Collection Act.
B. 1) Examining whether the Defendant had an obligation to pay to B under the agreement made on June 1, 2009, the Defendant and B agreed on June 1, 2009 that “the Defendant shall preferentially pay KRW 2,00,000,000 to B out of the proceeds from the sale of the goods arising from the instant project, and the Defendant shall grant B the preservation and registration of the building completed by 3 households if there is no proceeds from the sale of the goods due to the unsold sale, etc.” However, as seen above, the obligation to pay the amount of the above agreement is deemed to be the condition of the proceeds from the sale of the goods. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the proceeds from the sale of the goods accrued due to the instant project, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. Then, examining whether the Defendant had an obligation to pay to B the proceeds from the sale of the goods pursuant to the agreement made on April 5, 2011.