beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determination, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, even considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision
A. The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Plaintiff was forced to withdraw from the bid bid of this case due to the Plaintiff’s slandered Defendant B, the leading party, and thus, the Defendants’ negligence should be considered in determining the scope of the Defendants’ damages liability.
B. Determination 1) In a case where an obligor is liable for damages due to nonperformance to a creditor, if there is any negligence on the part of the obligee or if it is necessary to ensure the fairness of the burden of damages, the obligor’s liability may be limited. However, it is not permissible in principle to assert that the obligor, who intentionally caused the nonperformance, reduces his/her liability on the grounds of the obligee’s negligence. This is because it would lead to an outcome contrary to the principle of fairness or good faith that makes the obligor finally possess the benefit arising from the nonperformance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37721, May 15, 2008). (ii) health stand in the instant case, and there is no evidence that it is justifiable to acknowledge that the Defendants forced the Plaintiff to withdraw, and it would result in the Defendants’ final possession of the principal and interest of the paid-in principal and interest, which are the benefit arising from the nonperformance of the obligation, contrary to the ideology of fairness or good faith. Therefore, it is not permissible to assert that the Defendants’
Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is the conclusion.