beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part demanding confirmation of non-existence of a contract bond and obligation shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since Article 420 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for the collection of tolls amounting to KRW 3,280,703,333, the total contract period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2016, and KRW 198,298,390, and entered into a contract for the Defendant’s B business office (hereinafter the instant business office) within the scope of the total contract period on a yearly basis.
The Plaintiff submitted the performance guarantee insurance policy (contract) issued by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. to the Defendant and performed the business of collecting tolls.
B. After entering into an annual contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) each year; (b) KRW 3,36,655,200; (c) KRW 589,181,69; and (d) KRW 147,214,710; and (c) the contract deposit was changed to KRW 147,214,710; and (d) the Plaintiff was issued by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. as the purchase amount of the said contract deposit; and (e) submitted to the Defendant a performance bond (contract) performance guarantee insurance contract modification securities with the purchase
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. Article 22(2) of the Special Conditions in the Defendant’s assertion provides that “If a contract for the collection of tolls is terminated or terminated due to the Plaintiff’s fault pursuant to Paragraph (1) and Article 29(1) of the General Conditions in the instant case, the contract bond shall be reverted to the Defendant.” If the termination of the instant service contract is justifiable, the contract bond shall be reverted to the Defendant.
In other words, the existence of the obligation to contract deposit is determined according to the legitimacy of the termination of the instant service contract, and thus disputing the legitimacy of the termination of the instant service contract is to confirm the non-existence of the obligation to contract deposit.