beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
On December 27, 2013, concluded between the defendant and A.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the price of the goods on the ground that a monetary loan contract for movable property collateral security concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 27, 2013, which is the debtor of the goods price, constitutes unfair juristic act, bad faith, or false agreement, and sought monetary compensation equivalent to the price of the goods on the ground that the said monetary loan contract constitutes a fraudulent act. The court of first instance rejected the claim for confirmation of invalidity among the main claims, dismissed the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and partly accepted the conjunctive claim.
Since only the defendant appealed, the object of this Court's trial is limited to the preliminary claim partially quoted.
2. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, on July 21, 2013, entered into a special agreement on the instant subcontract and the progress payment (hereinafter “instant special agreement”)
(B) Of the construction works referred to in Category B 9 and 10, the agreement was concluded between A and A on July 30, 2012 that the sum of Class IV (Section 3 and Section 6, and Section 3 and Section 6) of the steel-frame structure necessary for the manufacture of the said boiler (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract agreement”) is to be produced and supplied with 8,082,00 kilograms (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”).
(2) According to the instant subcontract, the Defendant paid 10% of the ordered amount to A in advance at the construction site B, and the remainder shall be paid when A entered the steel materials at the construction site B. As such, on September 26, 2012, the Defendant paid 1,170,400,000 won (1,064,000,000 x 1.1) plus value-added tax as advance to A, and paid the completed portion on February 4, 2013 as of February 4, 2013.
3. However, at the request of A, the Defendant is at the A’s factory even before entering the construction site B from March 2013.