2. ○○ Stock Company

3. ○○ Incorporated Company

4. ○○ Incorporated Company

[Defendant-Appellant]

125, 290, 068 won and each of the above amounts shall be paid 5% per annum from October 1, 2005 to June 5, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Moreover, from May 3, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from May 3, 2005 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. The plaintiff ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff’s Co., Ltd.") received down payment of KRW 19,00,00,000, and received shares in the construction work price at KRW 26%, 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as "○○○○ Co.,, Ltd.") from Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City Co., Ltd.") to build infrastructure for the project for the rearrangement of land in the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "○○ District Co., Ltd.") and received down payment of KRW 19,00,00,000, and the shares in the construction work price shall have 26%, 00,000 ○○ Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○○ Co., Ltd. 2, hereinafter referred to as "○○) and 5%.

B. On May 9, 2002, Plaintiff ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”) entrusted the disposal of wastes discharged from ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”) with the construction work upon delegation by the Plaintiff ○○, ○○, and ○○○, who is an executing company of the said joint supply and demand company, and entrusted the disposal of the wastes discharged from ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”) with the disposal of the wastes. The ○○○ entrusted the disposal of the wastes to ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○”) according to the nature of the wastes, and the recycling was entrusted to ○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”).

C. However, the Plaintiff ○○○’s ○○○○○○’s regular performance of duties, the representative director’s ○○○○○○○, the head of the site director, the head of ○○○○○○○, and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., conspired in succession, and acquired KRW 75,928,412 from the Defendant Incheon City by deceiving the Defendant Incheon City to acquire KRW 634, among the 634 tons of wastes subject to incineration of the ○○○ District Construction from June 19, 202 to July 4, 2002.

D. In addition, the above ○○○, head of ○○, head of ○○, head of ○, and head of ○○○○, and head of ○○○ et al. conspired in order to discharge and dispose of the wastes of 101 blocks from December 4, 2002 to July 31, 2004, by means of preparing a false simplified waste delivery note 4,842 on the processed volume not actually disposed of, and by deceiving the Defendant Incheon City by submitting a weather statement, thereby deceiving the Defendant Incheon City by deceiving the Defendant Incheon City of KRW 2,135, 814, and 015 on the waste disposal volume.

E. As the Plaintiff ○○ was prosecuted by the above-mentioned ○○○ and U20, etc. and tried to the Incheon District Court due to the above criminal facts, the Plaintiff ○ deposited KRW 215,00,000 as part of the unjust enrichment against the Defendant Incheon City on June 15, 2005.

F. Meanwhile, on September 16, 2005, Plaintiff ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○ filed a claim for payment of KRW 1,149,313,00 with respect to the construction cost of the 10th construction cost on December 31, 2007, where the litigation was pending in this case, the base construction cost rate of December 31, 2007 reaches 82%. Defendant Incheon City’s first to 9, and the 11th to 15th construction cost. However, on September 16, 2005, Defendant Incheon filed a claim for payment of KRW 1,149, 313,00 with the 10th construction cost of the 10th construction cost of the 10th construction cost, and only KRW 46,575,7565,7565,757,575,205 from Defendant Incheon City’s 2005.

【Unsatisfy-based satch-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satch-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based sat

(a) Claim for the completion of construction works;

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant Incheon City is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff Company KRW 946, 547, and 475 (hereinafter referred to as “the construction price of this case”) that has not been paid ten times the construction work of ○○ District Development Project, and to pay the Plaintiff Company KRW 236, 636, 870, and KRW 227, 171, and 390 for each of the above money, as the Plaintiff Company seeks, and as the Plaintiff Company seeks, to the Plaintiff Company, KRW 246, 102, 345.

2) Determination as to Defendant Incheon City’s assertion

A) Defendant Incheon City’s assertion

Defendant 2, 2, 239, 58, 248, 158, 274, 275, 47, 475, 47, 475, 48, 477, and 475, 57, and 475 of the Civil Act are liable for damages to Defendant 2, 2, 239, 58, 248, 248, 155, and 28, 47, 47, 47, 57, 48, 47, 47, 45, and 57, and 258, 47, 57, and 48, 48, and 222, 248, 15, and 155, respectively. The construction cost claim in this case is claimed to be the remainder of the amount deposited by Plaintiff 1 and others.

B) Determination

(1) Since a joint supply and demand company basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, if one of its members was in the position of a manager as a representative of a joint supply and demand company, the former members of the joint supply and demand company shall be deemed to have been in the position of a manager in the partnership under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da49620, Dec. 12, 2000); and in a case where one of the members in the relationship of the joint supply and demand company has entrusted the management of the affairs to be jointly handled by him/her to one of the partners, the other partners shall be deemed to be in the position of the employer at the same time as the partner of the joint supply and demand company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da5164, Apr. 28, 1998).

In full view of the purport of the argument in the above facts, the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, a sum of the amount of money obtained from the Defendant Incheon○○ 2, 70, 640, 866 won, 575, 82, 821 won on September 8, 2003, and 821 won on the part of the Plaintiff○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, the head of the public service division, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, a false summary waste delivery document, and submitted a written statement on September 16, 202, thereby deceiving the Defendant Incheon○ 3, 412 won on January 30, 203, 108, 640, 86 won on the part of the Defendant○○○ 2,57 won on the part of the Defendant○○○○ 2,57 5.

(2) However, in full view of the description of evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the construction site of the ○○ District is subject to the responsible supervision system, and the supervision team is stationed at the site on behalf of the defendant Incheon City on behalf of the defendant Incheon, and is in charge of the inspection of origin related to waste disposal, etc., so even though the supervision team has an occupational duty to verify whether waste equivalent to the construction cost has been disposed of at the time of the plaintiff company's request for public fraud, there is a duty of care to confirm whether the waste corresponding to the construction cost has been disposed of at the time of the plaintiff company's request for public fraud, the supervisor's demotion, etc. among the corporation of the ○○○○ District upon the delegation of the defendant Incheon City on the part of the private person, who was subject to supervision in connection with the pertinent work, was entrusted to the director's full-time supervision of the plaintiff ○○○○○, etc., and thereafter, the damage caused by the plaintiff company's negligence and negligence on the part of the defendant company in light of this case 8.

reasonable;

(3) In addition, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the above basic facts, the defendant Incheon Metropolitan Government received the above money from the plaintiff ○, etc. on March 7, 2005, KRW 00, KRW 00 on April 8, 2005, KRW 900,000 on June 15, 2005, KRW 00 on June 215, 2005, KRW 700 on August 2, 2005, KRW 60 on August 103, 794, KRW 60 on August 2, 2005, and KRW 7,000 on August 12, 200, KRW 7,000 on September 6, 200, and KRW 6,00 on September 120, 200 on September 6, 205, the claim for construction price of this case to the defendant 2, who was paid by the plaintiff 1 on June 6, 2005.

( 4 ) 따라서 , 피고 인천시의 손해배상채권은 편취금 2 , 211 , 742 , 427원 및 이에 대한 상 계적상 일까지의 지연이자 195 , 588 , 300원 [ 11 , 410 , 064원 ( 75 , 928 , 412원×1097일 / 365일 ×0 . 05 , 계산의 편의상 원 미만은 버림 , 이하 같다 ) + 14 , 301 , 900원 ( 108 , 640 , 866원×961일 7365일×0 . 05 ) + 58 , 343 , 710원 ( 575 , 552 , 821원 × 740 일 / 365일 ×0 . 05 ) + 75 , 314 , 393 원 ( 871 , 307 , 558원 × 631일 / 365일×0 . 05 ) + 32 , 560 , 341원 ( 505 , 724 , 459원 × 470일 / 365일 ×0 . 05 ) + 3 , 657 , 892원 ( 74 , 588 , 311원×358일 / 365일 < 0 . 05 ) ] 에서 원고 회사들의 책임을 80 % 로 제한하면 , 자동채권인 손해배상채권은 1 , 925 , 864 , 581원 [ ( 2 , 211 , 742 , 427원 + 195 , 588 , 300원 ) ×0 . 8 ] 으로 계산되고 , 위 손해배상채권에서 원고 ○○ 등으로부터 변제 공탁받은 1 , 472 , 794 , 600원 및 이에 대한 상계적상 일까지의 지연이자 27 , 564 , 457원 [ 3 , 561 , 095원 ( 134 , 000 , 000원 × 194일 / 365일×0 . 05 ) + 19 , 972 , 602원 ( 900 , 000 , 000원 × 162일 / 365일 ×0 . 05 ) + 2 , 768 , 493원 ( 215 , 000 , 000원×94일 / 365일 ×0 . 05 ) + 654 , 048원 ( 103 , 794 , 600원×46 일 / 365일×0 . 05 ) + 608 , 219원 ( 120 , 000 , 000원×37일 / 365일×0 . 05 ) ] 을 공제하면 424 , 505 , 524원 [ 1 , 925 , 864 , 581원 ( 1 , 472 , 794 , 600원 + 27 , 564 , 457원 ) ] 이 남게 됨이 계산상 명백하므로 , 이 사 건 공사대금 채권 946 , 547 , 475원은 상계적상 일인 2005 . 9 . 16 . 피고 인천시의 나머지 손해배 상 채권 424 , 505 , 524원과 대등액의 범위에서 소멸하였다고 할 것이므로 피고 인천시의 위 주장은 위 인정범위 내에서 이유 있다 .

(5) Sub-decisions

As a result, Defendant 1, 2, 32, 041, 951 won (946, 547, 475 won - 424, 505, 524 won) in total with the ten-time construction work bonus of the Plaintiff Company 135, 730, 907 won (52, 041, 951 x 26/100) in proportion to the shares of the Plaintiff Company 130, 510, 487 won (52, 041, 951 x 25/100) in total to the Plaintiff Company 130, 510, 951 x 25/100), 130,510, 510, 527, 251, 529/100, 251, 2529/10, 254) in each of the above ○○.

(b) Claim for unjust enrichment;

The plaintiff ○ does not have obtained money from the defendant Incheon City, but does not bear the liability for damages to the defendant Incheon City, and therefore the plaintiff ○○ shall not be held liable to compensate for the damage, so the 215,00,000 won deposited on June 15, 2005 by the plaintiff ○○ shall have acquired profits without any legal cause by the defendant Incheon City. Thus, the defendant ○○ shall return the deposit amount of KRW 215,00,000, and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued thereon.

The sum by deceiving Defendant Incheon City by the director of the office of the Plaintiff ○, the director of the office of the Plaintiff ○○, etc.

2, 211, 742, and 427 won were stolen, and Plaintiff ○○ is an employer, such as ○○, who is an employer, such as ○○, and is liable for damages to the Defendant Incheon City. As such, the foregoing assertion that Plaintiff ○○ was not liable for damages to the Defendant Incheon City is without merit, on the premise that Plaintiff ○○ was not liable for damages to the Defendant Incheon City.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant 130, 730, 907 won, plaintiff 130, 510, 487 won, plaintiff 130, 510, 487 won, plaintiff 125, 290, 068 won to plaintiff ○○, and 125, 290, and 068 won, and each of the above money shall be paid to the plaintiff ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, after the payment date, as requested by the plaintiff, it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from October 1, 2005 to June 5, 2008, which is the sentencing date of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence of the obligation to perform and the scope thereof. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim is dismissed by 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, since the next day after the completion date of the obligation.

Judges

Judges