[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that Eul delegated Eul's right to receive the construction price for Eul, and it is reasonable to view that Eul's payment of the above payment of the construction price for Eul was settled in the internal relations between the members of the joint contractor and Eul, in case where Eul paid Eul a deposit and tax invoice corresponding to Eul's share of the subcontractor's share, and Eul paid Gap the construction price for Eul's share of the subcontract construction price for the whole amount of Eul's share of the subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor'

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that Eul delegated Eul's right to receive the construction price for Eul, and it is reasonable to view Eul's payment of the construction price for Eul as the delegation of Eul's right to receive the construction price for Eul, in case where Eul paid Eul's deposit and tax invoice corresponding to Eul's share of the subcontractor Eul's share, and Eul paid Eul the construction price for Eul's share, as Eul delivered a promissory note to Eul for the full repayment of Eul's share of the construction price for the subcontracted construction work as the contractor of Eul's joint contractor

1. The court below acknowledged that the defendant and the International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "International Co., Ltd.") were entitled to jointly supply and demand of the construction work for the above construction work from Masan City to 00,000 won when he subcontracted the soundproof walls construction work to the plaintiff on November 10, 1995. The plaintiff completed the soundproof walls construction work without difficulty in December 1995. As to the defendant's defense of payment, it is difficult for the defendant to accept the receipts from 90,000 won, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to receive the receipts from 90,000 won since it was difficult for the plaintiff to receive the receipts from 40,000 won, and it was also difficult for the plaintiff to receive the receipts from 96,000 won, and it was also difficult for the plaintiff to receive the receipts from 90,000 won of the International Co., Ltd. under the direction of international co., Ltd., to do so.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

In accordance with the facts duly established by the court below, it appears that the international soil and the international soil were acting as the representative of the joint supply and demand company in the process of the joint supply and demand project by forming the joint supply and demand company and jointly receiving the payment for the construction project from the Shisan City. Since the joint supply and demand company basically has the nature of the joint supply and demand company under the Civil Act, if the international soil and demand company was in the position of a manager as the representative of the joint supply and demand company, it shall be deemed that there was the relationship between the international soil and the defendant with the manager of the partnership under the Civil Act. Thus, it shall be deemed that the international soil and the defendant had the relationship between the manager of the partnership under the Civil Act and the member of the joint supply and demand company. Thus, if the international soil were not in December 1995 and the construction cost to be shared by the defendant is delivered to the plaintiff, and it shall be deemed that it was limited to the execution cost of the international soil and demand for the construction project, including the deposit sheet and the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff.

If there are some circumstances, the court below should have deliberated on the contents of the joint supply and demand agreement entered into between the international case and the defendant [the members of a joint supply and demand organization shall prepare a joint supply and demand agreement pursuant to Article 72 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (Budget No. 04-136, July 10, 2200; budget No. 04-136, July 10, 1995) to which Article 70 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 70 of the Local Finance Act], and confirmed the legal relationship between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the international case.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the plaintiff delegated the right to receive the construction cost for international cases by concluding that the plaintiff delegated the right to receive the payment for international cases, by misunderstanding the legal relations between the defendant and the international case, who is a member of the joint supply and demand organization, without examining the contractual relationship between the defendant and the international case, and thereby having caused the violation of the rules of evidence or delegation of the right to receive the payment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)