beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant: (a) from May 3, 2018 to February 3, 2019, to Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 51,216,00 and its amount.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. Subjective and preliminary co-litigation of the relevant legal doctrine is a form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves with respect to the same legal relationship in a lump sum without contradiction, and a judgment shall be rendered on the claims against all co-litigants.
(Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; and where one of the main co-litigants and the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claim concerning other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal shall be subject to adjudication in the appellate trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008). In such a case, the subject of adjudication in the appellate trial shall be determined in consideration of the need for the final and conclusive conclusion between the main and preliminary co-litigants and their other parties.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355 Decided February 24, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da75202 Decided March 20, 2015, etc.). In addition, Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment shall be rendered on the claims related to all co-litigants in preliminary or selective co-litigation under Article 70(1) of the same Act. As such, where a judgment is rendered only on the claims related to a part of co-litigants in such co-litigation, this constitutes a judgment, not a partial judgment, and thus, the appeal ought to be contested by an appeal
B. (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49430 Decided March 27, 2008).
In this case, (1) The primary Plaintiff A sought payment of the purchase price for semiconductor parts sub-purchases under the tax invoice against the Defendant, and the preliminary Plaintiff B, the name of the issuance of the tax invoice, sought payment of the same money against the Defendant in preparation for the case where the Plaintiff A’s claim is not accepted.
In this regard, the first instance court accepted the claim of the main plaintiff A and judged the conjunctive claim of the plaintiff B separately.