beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 31, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for aggregate production with the NAS Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PS Industry Development”) and the NAD with the NAY-gun, Goi-Gun with the content that the Defendant would produce aggregate. The Defendant entered into a contract for the collection of earth and rocks production agency with E and subcontracted it to E.
B. On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiffs concluded a stone transport contract with E on the said aggregate production workplace, and agreed to receive KRW 6 million each from E as the equipment cost.
C. On March 27, 2012, the Defendant reversed the aggregate production contract, and the Defendant settled the costs invested in the past and paid 150 million won to the Defendant by April 10, 2012.
The above KRW 150 million was composed of KRW 70 million for the Defendant’s input costs of KRW 85 million for the Defendant and KRW 85 million for the Defendant’s input costs of KRW 150 million for the Defendant’s development of the SP industry and paid KRW 85 million for E. The Defendant agreed to include the above amount in E’s expenses, all equipment costs and personnel expenses leased by E.
E on March 5, 2013, transferred to F the claim amounting to KRW 85 million against the Defendant. On March 8, 2013, E sent the claim amounting to KRW 85 million to the Defendant by means of content-certified mail. On March 21, 2013, F, as the assignee of the claim, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim amounting to KRW 59 million against the Defendant, and the decision of recommending settlement was finalized on October 25, 2013 with the purport that the Defendant pays KRW 59 million to F.
E. On July 7, 2013, SP drafted a written agreement with the Defendant, and the said written agreement conditions the following to be valid in the case of taking over money (the case No. 2013da 502489 which was referred to the conciliation of the case No. 1. D. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1.