2017Na47429 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

Coding drinks Co., Ltd.

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da5227123 Decided June 16, 2017

November 22, 2017

December 20, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs and incidental appeal costs shall be borne respectively by each person;

1. Purport of claim

On May 26, 2015, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the contract deposit under the purchase contract for the Defendant on May 26, 2015 does not exist in excess of KRW 927,838.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in excess of the amount recognized under the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is confirmed that the plaintiff's obligation to pay the contract deposit under the purchase contract of the defendant on May 26, 2015, to the defendant does not exist in excess of KRW 9

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The Defendant’s grounds for appeal and the Plaintiff’s grounds for incidental appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance shows each of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 (the evidence No. 9 and 13 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8-1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 11, 12 of the Defendant’s evidence No. 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the Defendant’s evidence No. 2, 3, and 7 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2, the fact-finding and the

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance judgment No. 8, 14, “the Defendant,” “from 17 to 17,” is deleted; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized in this court is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “the next 2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion emphasized by the Plaintiff, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the text of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the event that the Plaintiff fails to perform the instant contract through a letter sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as of June 1, 2016, it violates the principle of counter-argument that the Defendant asserts that the full amount of the instant contract bond (106,639,890 won) should be confiscated based on Article 12(3) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party, while imposing the amount equivalent to 30/100 of the quantity of the non-supplyd pursuant to Article 53(6) of the Special Conditions for the instant contract, the amount of damages to be reverted to the Defendant should be reduced to less than 20% of the instant contract bond, taking into account such circumstances.

B. Determination

Article 8(1) of the General Conditions of this case provides that "a contracting officer shall revert the contract bond to the National Treasury if the other party to the contract fails to perform his/her contractual obligations without any justifiable reason," and Article 25 of the Special Conditions of this case provides that "a contracting officer shall revert the bond to the National Treasury immediately if any ground for devolving the contract bond arises," and Article 53(6) provides that "in cases where the other party to the contract fails to supply all or part of the quantity of the supplied goods requested by the necessary group due to the cause belonging to the other party's liability, the other party to the contract shall pay the other party an amount equivalent to 30/100 of the quantity of the supplied goods to the National Treasury," which provides that "the other party to the contract of this case shall be deemed to have failed to perform the contract of this case" as stated in Article 6(1) of the General Conditions of this case, which provides that "the other party to the contract of this case shall be deemed to have discharged the contract of this case to the plaintiff on June 1, 201601.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's obligation to pay the contract bond against the defendant upon the termination of the contract of this case does not exceed 42,65,956 won. Since the defendant claims the payment of the contract bond of this case against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum Judge Judge

Judge Lee Jae-ho,

Judges Park Jong-young