New Building Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 2, 2014

Daegu District Court Decision 201Gahap6704 Decided November 9, 2012

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's primary claim against the above revocation shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the conjunctive claim added at the trial are dismissed, respectively.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of the plaintiff's claim and incidental appeal

A. The primary purport of the claim and incidental appeal

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 494,928,00 won and 232,084,00 won among them from October 31, 2009; with respect to 122,902,00 won from November 30, 2009; with respect to 65,190,000 won from December 31, 2009; with respect to 9,170,000 won from March 2, 2010; with respect to 65,582,00 won from May 31, 2010 to the day of complete payment; and with respect to 49,170,000 won, 20% per annum of 20% per annum from May 31, 2010 to the day of full payment (the plaintiff modified the previous claim to the primary purport of the claim; and the part of the claim to be claimed to be increased).

B. Preliminary purport of claim

From June 8, 2012 to September 3, 2013, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 494,928,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 8, 2012 and from September 3, 2013 to the service date of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff added a claim for damages arising from the Defendant’s employer’s responsibility as the conjunctive claim for the first time).

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against that part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

1) The Defendant was a company that took over all the obligations of the C&W bank related to the ○○○○○○ apartment construction work (hereinafter “instant apartment construction work”), which was executed by the C&W bank while combining C&W bank (hereinafter “C&W bank”), and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from C&W bank for the instant apartment construction work (hereinafter “instant subcontracting work”).

2) From November 7, 2006, C&C entered the rehabilitation procedure on June 11, 2009, when performing the new construction of the instant apartment from November 7, 2006, it was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure after having been decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure. On December 10, 2010, C&C entered the rehabilitation procedure after having been decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure after having been decided to complete the rehabilitation procedure after having been decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on April 29, 201 with the third party acquisition method around December 10, 201. C& C C&C Holdings integrated C&C bank around June 29, 201 and changed its trade name to the Defendant (Therefore, C&C bank and the Defendant are collectively named as the Defendant unless there is a need to distinguish between C&C bank and the Defendant).

B. Conclusion of the original contract and the subcontract of this case

1) On November 7, 2006, MM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SM”) concluded a contract with the Defendant for the new construction of the instant apartment from November 8, 2006 to July 31, 2009, with the contract amount of KRW 50,653,97,000, and the construction period from November 8, 2006 to July 31, 2009, and the liquidated damages for delay shall not exceed 1/1,000 (Provided, That the aggregate amount shall not exceed 3/100 of the contract amount) of the construction amount per day (hereinafter “original contract”).

2) On August 25, 2008, the Defendant awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff with the contract amount of KRW 1,712,00,000 (payment in cash within 60 days from the date of receipt of the object), and the construction period from August 25, 2008 to July 31, 2009 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

(c) Preparation of a direct payment agreement and a project agreement due to the rehabilitation procedures of the C&C bank;

1) The subcontractors of the instant apartment construction project, including the Plaintiff, who were in financial difficulties around the end of 2008, discontinued the construction work on the ground of the financial standing of the C&C bank.

2) On or around March 2009, the name IM, a contractor of the new apartment construction project in this case, C&S bank, Daegu Bank, a loan bank for new construction funds, and Lee Dong-tae, a representative of subcontractors, made an agreement for the resumption of the new apartment construction project in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement on the Construction of ○○○○ apartment” on June 22, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business agreement”). The main contents of the instant business agreement relating to this case are as follows.

2. The project participants shall consult on the method of completion of the project by September 209, notwithstanding the progress of the rehabilitation procedures for the sewage construction site. The agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor on the direct payment of the subcontract price for the new sewage construction project and the new construction cost for the new construction project shall be made. The new construction cost for the new construction project and the new construction cost for the new construction project shall be paid for the new construction cost for the new construction project. The new construction cost for the new construction project shall be as stated in the separate sheet 3 (Evidence 10) and the new construction cost for the new construction project. The new construction cost for the new construction project shall be as stated in the separate sheet 9 to be paid for the new construction cost for the new construction project and the new construction cost for the new construction project. The new construction cost for the new construction project shall be as stated in the separate sheet 9 to be paid for the new construction cost for the new construction project. The new construction cost for the new construction project shall be as stated in the separate sheet 9 to be paid for the new construction cost for the new construction project:

3) On March 2009, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of undertaking (attached Forms 1 and 17 No. 17 of the instant business agreement) that acknowledges that the instant business agreement will have the effect on the Plaintiff, and submitted it to the Franchis and Daegu Bank. Around that time, the Plaintiff prepared a “direct payment agreement for subcontract price” (attached Forms 3 and 10-2 of the instant business agreement, and hereinafter “instant agreement”) stating the contents of the instant subcontract with Franchis and the Defendant, and prepared a “direct payment agreement for subcontract price” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the following contents, and obtained a fixed date as to the instant agreement on April 17, 2009.

The terms of the attached subcontract contract contained in the main sentence: the contract amount of KRW 1,712,00,000 and the period of construction from August 25, 2008 to July 31, 2009; 1. An agreement between the ordering person, contractor (Defendant) and subcontractor (Plaintiff) to pay the subcontract price corresponding to the portion executed by the subcontractor to the subcontractor in accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. 2. The contractor shall, at the time of the inspection and completion inspection, request the subcontract price after reviewing the details of the portion executed by the subcontractor, and the ordering person shall pay the subcontract price directly to the account of the subcontractor.

D. Alteration of the instant subcontract and payment of the construction cost

1) After that, on March 13, 2009 (the first revision), the Plaintiff increased the construction cost of the instant subcontract by KRW 429,345,787 compared to the original “1,712,00,000,000,” and the construction period of the instant subcontract was “2,141,345,787 won” (the second revision) until August 17, 2009 (the second revision) and “within July 31, 2009,” and the Plaintiff appears to have received the said construction cost of the instant subcontract from “2,141,345,787 won” to “2,582,213 won” to “2,206,298,200,000 won,” and the Plaintiff appears to have completed the instant subcontract with the “2,230,000,000 won,” and the said construction amount was to be paid within the period of each of the instant subcontract in cash (the third revision).

2) On October 31, 2009, the Plaintiff completed all the construction of the instant subcontract and the instant modified contract (the construction of the instant apartment was completed on November 7, 2009). However, only a part of the original contract amount (one,712,00,000 won) of the instant subcontract was paid from the Master Crafts.

3) On August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff claimed payment of the unpaid portion out of the total amount of the subcontract price (2,206,928,000 won) (2,206,928,000 won), including the amount increased in the instant modified contract, with the delivery of a copy of the complaint in the case No. 2010, Daegu District Court 2010,79777 on August 11, 201 (hereinafter “the instant increase”). However, in the instant lawsuit, the said court did not receive the payment for delay corresponding to the increased amount. Meanwhile, on May 18, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment on the part of the Plaintiff ordering the Plaintiff to win the original contract amount (1,712,000,000 won) of the instant subcontract (1,712,003,633 won) and the damages for delay, which became final and conclusive by both parties at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including branch numbers without any other indication; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 24 (Provided, That part of Gap evidence No. 8-2, which is not believed below, is excluded), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Statutes applicable to the instant case;

Article 4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Act No. 8971, Mar. 21, 2008) that was enforced at the time of the conclusion of the subcontracted project of this case and Article 34 of the former Act on Fair Transactions in Subcontracting (Act No. 8539, Oct. 20, 2007; hereinafter “subcontract”) that was amended and enforced at the time of the conclusion of the subcontracted project of this case, the Subcontract Act preferentially applies to the subcontracted project of this case, and the relevant provisions are as follows.

(1) Where a prime contractor entrusts a subcontractor with the manufacture, etc., he/she shall be liable for the payment of the subcontract consideration within the scope of 60 days from the date of receipt of the subject matter, etc. (in cases of construction, the date of acceptance for the entrusted services, and in cases of the entrustment of services, the fixed date; hereinafter the same shall apply) if the subcontractor and the subcontractor directly request the subcontractor to pay the subcontract consideration within the scope of 30 days from the date of payment.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, as a party to the instant alteration contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant increase price and damages for delay due to delay in payment to the Plaintiff who completed the instant subcontracted contract (including the amended contract part), barring any special circumstances (it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost related to the instant subcontracted project, including the increased price, constitutes a public interest claim against C&S bank of the rehabilitation company, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount as a party to the instant alteration contract (it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost claim regarding the instant subcontracted project constitutes a claim for the rehabilitation company

On the other hand, with respect to damages for delay for the increased price of this case, the Plaintiff claimed for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as set forth in the Subcontract Act and the Fair Trade Commission’s notice as to the issue date of each tax invoice. However, as long as the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s defense and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendant, this part shall not be further determined.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

1) The defendant's assertion

A) In accordance with the letter of undertaking under the instant business agreement and the letter of agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the instant increase amount to the Plaintiff. As such, name MM, the ordering person, is obligated to directly pay the instant increase amount to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the increased price to the Plaintiff was extinguished.

B) Even if the above direct payment agreement is not acknowledged, the Defendant, the original contractor, delayed the payment of each payment for the completed portion on August 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009 at least twice, and the Defendant could not pay the subcontract price in the course of the rehabilitation procedure until August 2010, which requested the Plaintiff to pay the increased amount.

C) Therefore, Pursuant to Article 14(1)1, 2 (in the case of a contractor’s suspension of payment), and 3 (in the case of a delay in the payment of subcontract price not less than twice) of the Subcontract Act, Pursuant to Article 14(1)1, 2 (in the case of a contractor’s suspension of payment), and 3 (in this case, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the subcontract price (the instant increase price) to the Plaintiff was extinguished pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Subcontract Act that provides that “the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor is extinguished.”

2) Whether there was an agreement on direct payment of the instant increased price

A) Relevant legal principles

If the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement. In the event that there is any difference between the parties about the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret it in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background of such agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the genuine intent of the parties, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6065, May 27,

B) Determination

(1) In accordance with the formation of the letter of undertaking under the instant business agreement and the agreement of this case, we examine whether the business entity agreed to directly pay the Plaintiff the instant increase price, in addition to the initial subcontract price.

(2) First, it is difficult to believe that the part of the evidence Nos. 8-2, 16-2, 16-4, and 8, as shown above, stated the Plaintiff’s unilateral assertion that the Plaintiff requested the obligation of direct payment of MazM in the previous case, and that it stated the Plaintiff’s unilateral assertion in light of the following facts admitted:

On the other hand, the instant business agreement was concluded for the purpose of completing the remaining construction by directly paying the subcontract price necessary for the completion of the construction to the subcontractors due to the financial difficulties of Defendant C&C. ② The first part of the instant business agreement provides that “The participants have agreed on the method of completing the construction by September 2009, despite the progress of the C&C rehabilitation procedures, and the contractor C&M and the subcontractor, who is the appurtenant contractor, agreed to prepare a direct payment agreement for the subcontract price and pay the corresponding construction price to the subcontractor.” Article 4(1) provides that “The subcontract construction cost and material price for the subcontractor, etc. shall be paid under the terms and conditions stipulated in the subcontract agreement and the delivery contract concluded with the C&C company, etc.,” and the first part of the instant business agreement provides that “The subcontractor, as seen above, shall be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the subcontract agreement and the entire subcontract price agreement signed by the subcontractor in accordance with the first part of No. 1 to No. 21, and the purport of the subcontract agreement as stated in the present case.3”

However, considering the following circumstances revealed in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the facts recognized as above and the quoted evidence as well as the evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10 are sufficient to acknowledge that “SM agreed to directly pay the Plaintiff the increased construction price (the increased construction price) thereafter, in addition to the construction price stipulated in the instant agreement,” and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The section section of the business agreement of this case provides that "the Si Construction Technology C&S and the executing company, and the subcontractor, who is the subsidiary company thereof, shall prepare a direct payment agreement of the subcontract price and pay the subcontract price to the sewage supplier." Article 3 (1) of the Maritime Affairs and Trade Act provides that "SM, C&C, and sewage supplier shall enter into a direct payment agreement with the contents and form specified in attached Table 3 (Evidence A No. 10-2)." Article 3 (3) of the same Act provides that "each sewage supplier, etc. shall guarantee only the portion of the subcontract price and material price during the additional loan, and the details of the unpaid construction cost and material price as of February 2, 2009 shall also be submitted to the Daegu Bank and P&M before the date of conclusion of the additional loan agreement, and the subcontract price shall be reverted to each of the above direct payment enterprises if the reasons for the direct payment of the subcontract price occur."

(B) Accordingly, the instant agreement signed by the Plaintiff with the Defendant and M&M around March 2009 stipulated that “The terms of the subcontract: the contract amount: the contract amount: KRW 1,712,00,000, and the subcontract price corresponding to the portion executed by the subcontractor in the said subcontract shall be paid directly by the owner, contractor, and subcontractor pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry,” and explicitly specifies the contract amount subject to the direct payment agreement between the parties.

There is a case where some subcontractors submitted a warranty stating the increased subcontract price to the Daegu Bank, or where MM directly paid the increased subcontract price to some subcontractors, which seems to be due to the fact that the subcontractors or the defendant submitted in advance a modified subcontract price to the MM and obtained the consent of M in advance (i.e., there is an additional agreement on it).

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 5-2 and evidence Nos. 9 and 15-2, the plaintiff or the defendant did not notify or obtain consent of the name mar, even after concluding the amendment contract of this case. On Oct. 31, 2009, the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the increased price after completing the construction work under the amendment contract of this case, and requested the direct payment of the name mar for the first time around August 2010.

Since a contract for a contract is entered into between the original contractor and the subcontractor at his own option, the contract price may be increased compared to the original contract price. However, it is an exceptional day to agree that the ordering person bears the duty of direct payment without prior notice or consent regarding the increased subcontract price.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the direct payment agreement was concluded regarding the instant increase amount in excess of the foregoing is acceptable, on the ground that the subcontract price agreed to be directly paid to the Plaintiff by the master M& in accordance with the letter of undertaking under the instant business agreement and the drawing up of the instant agreement is limited to KRW 1,712,00,000 as explicitly stated in the instant agreement, which is a disposal document.

3) Whether it falls under Article 14(1)3 of the Subcontract Act

A) Relevant legal principles

Upon receipt of a request for direct payment under Article 14 (1) of the Subcontract Act, the obligation to pay directly to the subcontractor (contractor) shall be transferred to the subcontractor (contractor) while maintaining the identity of the obligation to pay the contract price corresponding thereto, and the subcontractor (contractor) may oppose the subcontractor (contractor) before the request for direct payment is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da19574, Jun. 10, 201). The scope of obligation to pay directly to the subcontractor (contractor) of the subcontractor under Article 14 (1) of the Subcontract Act shall be limited to the obligation to pay to the subcontractor (contractor) of the subcontractor, unless there are special circumstances, and the relevant subcontractor (contractor) shall be deemed to be the amount equivalent to the portion of the subcontract price which the subcontractor (contractor) has already paid to the subcontractor (contractor) within the scope of the obligation to pay, repair, construction, or service performance.

B) Whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay the increased price of this case to the Plaintiff is extinguished

(1) Facts of recognition

The defendant entered the rehabilitation procedure after the decision was made on June 11, 2009 with the rehabilitation case No. 2009hap29 and 30, and the rehabilitation procedure was completed after the decision was made on December 10, 2010 and the rehabilitation procedure was completed after the decision was issued with the authorization for rehabilitation plan by the third party acceptance method on April 29, 201. The plaintiff completed all of the construction works stipulated in the subcontract of this case and the modified contract of this case around October 30, 209, and the defendant shall pay to the defendant the monthly payment for the agreed amount of 232,084,000 won on August 31, 2009, and the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the progress payment of No. 250,000 won on September 12, 2009 or 200, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the progress payment of 20,000 won on September 30, 2009.

(2) Determination

(A) Examining the above facts in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and legal principles as seen earlier, at the time of August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent requesting the direct payment of the increased price, which is the subcontract price, had already been delayed twice in August 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009 (the above day is nothing more than a simple date. Thus, the changed contract of this case provides that “The payment of the increased price shall be made once a month from the date of receipt of the object within 60 days from the date of the above day, and on November 30, 2009, the order of payment shall be made twice, and Article 14(1)4 and Article 14(1)4 of the Subcontract Act (the order of payment of the subcontract price shall be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the above day, and Article 3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act shall be made directly to the Plaintiff at the time of the change in the subcontract price.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not claim the direct payment of the price for the instant increase to the order M&, without specifying that the Plaintiff falls under Article 14(1)3 of the Subcontract Act at the time of claiming the direct payment of the price for the instant increase to the order M&, but the obligation to pay the price for the direct payment to the subcontractor by the ordering person does not arise when the subcontractor claims the direct payment to the ordering person (the contractor) at the time of the occurrence of the cause under each subparagraph of Article 14(1) of the Subcontract Act. In this case, it does not require the subcontractor to claim the direct payment of the price for the instant increase to the ordering person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

(C) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “the time when the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor ceases to exist” rather than “the time when the subcontractor makes a request for the direct payment of the subcontract price to the subcontractor.” However, such assertion is contrary to Article 14(2)(1) of the Subcontract Act, and the prime contractor’s obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor to the prime contractor, and the subcontractor’s obligation to pay the subcontractor to the subcontractor to the extent that the cause under paragraph (1) of the same Article ceases to exist. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the aforementioned obligation to pay the subcontract price was not extinguished at the time of enforcement of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended on May 17, 2007 and enforced January 1, 2008, Article 8477 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 14(2)(1) of the Subcontract Act was amended on May 24, 2011 and enforced only within the scope of Article 14(2) of the Act’s obligation to pay the subcontractor to the subcontractor.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, around August 11, 2010, the defendant's obligation to pay the subcontract price (the increased price in this case) to the plaintiff was extinguished by the plaintiff seeking a direct payment to the name MM as the ordering person (However, with respect to the scope of extinction, the following is considered).

C) Scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the increased price of the instant case to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Daegu High Court Decision 2012Na7008, May 21, 2014, 201, which rendered a concurrent trial in the trial as related to the instant case and rendered a decision on the same day)

(1) Facts of recognition

The contract amount of the original contract of this case between M and the defendant was KRW 50,653,97,00, and the construction period was from November 8, 2006 to July 31, 2009. The defendant completed the new construction work of this case around November 7, 2009, and the plaintiff's request for direct payment of the increased price of this case reached M on August 11, 2010.

(3) In full view of the above quoted evidence and the purport of the entire contract amount of 30.M. 10 to 31, 200, 200, 30.10, 30,000,000 won and 45.7,000,000 won and 40.7,000,000 won and 9.7,000,000 won and 9.7,000,000 won and 9.7,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 6.7,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won and 9,000 won and 6.7,00,000 won and 9,000 won and 6,07,00 won and 6,07,06,00 won and 17,06,07,06,0.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, when the plaintiff's demand for direct payment of construction cost was reached on August 1, 2010, the defendant, who is the original contractor, at least 5,139,105 won, and at least 6,470,133,675 won, and the defendant's claim for damages against the defendant's 30.2, 20, 370, 370, 470, 278, 170, 279, 370, 47, 206, 37, 30, 47, 170, 270, 37, 47, 106, 27, 106, 37, 106, 47, 106, 106, 37, 107, 30, 100, 206, 306, 37, 107, 207, 106,

In addition, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that MM included KRW 494,928,00 of the increased price of this case which was not paid by the Plaintiff during the construction price already paid to the Defendant, and, accordingly, MM is obligated to directly pay the Plaintiff the increased price of KRW 494,928,00 of the increased price of this case and delay damages therefor within the scope of KRW 2,493,406,047 (or KRW 1,162,374,327) (or KRW 1,162,377) to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. Accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the increased price of this case to the Plaintiff was extinguished on August 1, 2010 pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Subcontract Act.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, since the defendant's payment of the increased price of this case and its obligation to pay damages for delay has already been extinguished, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for this part against the defendant is without merit.

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, since the business agreement of this case and the agreement of this case do not have the effect of the increase price (the direct payment agreement of this case is recognized as only the object of the original contract price of the subcontract of this case, and the direct payment agreement of this case is not recognized) the plaintiff was not paid the increase price of this case from M., and if the defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay the increase price, the non-party, who participated in the preparation of the business agreement of this case and the agreement of this case, stated the original contract price of the subcontract of this case only in the contract of this case, and did not include the increase price in the contract of this case in the contract of this case. Further, since the contents of the modified contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant were caused by gross negligence not submitted to S.M or Daegu bank, the defendant, as the non-party who committed the above tort, should compensate for damages equivalent to the increase price of this case that the plaintiff was unable to receive from M.

B. Determination

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Non-Party failed to prepare the instant agreement by negligence as alleged by the Plaintiff, or committed an unlawful act for which the content of the instant amendment was not submitted, or that the Plaintiff sustained losses due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the increased price, it is difficult to believe that each of the items of evidence No. 16-2 through No. 4 was merely the Plaintiff’s unilateral statement, and each of the items of evidence No. 10-2, No. 16-1, No. 17, No. 8, No. 9, and No. 10 were stated in the No. 10-2, No. 10-2, No. 9, and No. 10 were stated in the No. 3, No. 30-2, No.

Therefore, since the non-party's tort is not recognized, the defendant's liability for damages (employer's liability) cannot be recognized. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part of the claim is without merit without any further review.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant (including the conjunctive claims added in the trial) are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Tae-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-tae