beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim added by this court are dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the judgment on the basic facts and this part of the judgment on the main safety defense is as follows: the part among the judgment of the court of first instance, from 2nd 6th to 6th 8th , and from 7th 9 to 9th 3th 9th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9 (the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, referred to as the "decision on the main safety defense" in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant promised to accept D’s design expense obligation with D as a discharge, or did not repay D’s debt by accepting performance and acceptance. Accordingly, upon the request of D I, KRW 3,00,000,000 under Article 1(c) of the instant protocol of mediation against D (hereinafter “instant adjustment amount”).
D) Of the instant conciliation amount against the Defendant, KRW 1,878,286,452, which is the same amount as the principal and interest of the said design cost, became final and conclusive as the attachment and assignment order of this case was issued against the claim of KRW 1,878,286,452 (hereinafter “the instant amount”).
(2) As a result, the Defendant is liable to compensate D for damages equivalent to the entire amount of the instant case due to nonperformance. (2) If the Defendant assumes the obligation of the Defendant, not the discharged assumption or performance assumption, then the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to D and the Defendant, who is jointly and severally liable to I, is jointly and severally liable to I. In the internal relationship between D and the Defendant, the Defendant shall bear the full amount of the design cost.
However, as the claim of the entire amount of the instant adjustment amount D had been fully paid to I, the Defendant is liable to pay D the amount of indemnity equivalent to the entire amount of the instant adjustment amount, so long as the amount of the design expense to I was repaid to D.
3. In addition, the defendant is against I without any legal ground in accordance with the seizure and assignment order of this case.