beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2013 instead of giving up all the rights pertaining to the said installation works, among the Criju Construction Works, that the Plaintiff agreed to perform the said construction works on behalf of the Defendant on December 6, 2012, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant agreed as above on the condition that the Defendant will carry out the above installation work on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant could not carry out the installation work on the ground that the agreement in this case was null and void due to the non-performance of the terms and conditions, and thereafter, the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request because it again agreed that the Defendant would not have reached the agreement in this case.
2. Determination
A. On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “in lieu of the Plaintiff giving up all rights and rights with respect to the said installation works, KRW 100 million shall be paid to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2013 (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant agreement”) instead of giving up all rights and rights with respect to the said installation works, it is recognized that the agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, and evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including serial numbers) as a whole, the Defendant did not explicitly state the phrase that the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant would be engaged in the construction work. However, at the time of the agreement of this case, the Defendant renounced the Plaintiff’s right to the construction work of a set of Nos. 124 million under the name of the Plaintiff, including the construction work performance, and instead, the Defendant substituted the Defendant.