beta
Text
1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The plaintiff at the first instance court filed a claim for construction cost as a result of a counter-performance of obligation agreement, and filed a claim for damages on the ground of a breach of obligation under the conjunctive claim. The court of first instance rejected the main claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.
Since the defendant appealed only against this, this Court decides only the conjunctive claim.
(4) On the other hand, the court of first instance held that the above claim is not a preliminary consolidation, but a primary and preliminary claim. However, as long as the above claim differs from the subject matter of the lawsuit, it is reasonable to view it as the primary and preliminary claim, and as to the plaintiff's primary claim, it is deemed that the judgment was made in the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim under Article 3-A among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. The reason why this court should explain this part of the basic fact is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that although the defendant had an obligation under the agreement to pay the construction price directly to the plaintiff who is not the Seongbuk-gu industry pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 22(2) of the business agreement of this case, the plaintiff violated the business agreement of this case by paying the construction price of KRW 602,80,000 to the Sung-gu Industries, not the plaintiff, and thereby, the plaintiff suffered losses due to the failure of receiving KRW 302,80,000 among the construction price. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages.
In regard to this, the defendant does not have any content about who should pay the construction cost under Article 11(2) of the business agreement of this case, and the defendant shall be the head industry upon the request of the gender-du industry.