beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion emphasized or added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Even if the Defendant’s direct payment of the first payment to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Defendant’s direct payment agreement on the instant direct payment, the following agreement was reached between C and the Plaintiff on September 2017: (a) due to the financial shortage by C, and C and C, other than the Plaintiff, to preferentially receive the first payment from the Defendant and preferentially use the first payment from the Defendant; and (b) to pay the first payment by C after three months; and (c) accordingly, C issued an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) to the Plaintiff on September 18, 2017, as of December 31, 2017.
This constitutes a partial rescission of the instant direct payment agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant or C, or it can be deemed that C exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay the first price to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff cannot seek the payment of the first price to the defendant any further.
B. Based on the fact that the bill of this case was issued only on the sole basis of the fact that the bill of this case was partially rescinded by the original and the Defendant and C.
The defendant's primary obligation to pay the defendant's price cannot be deemed to have been discharged from liability, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding alone are insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, and it is recognized differently.