공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts of recognition - The Defendant, as the project implementer of the Seosan-dong 290 Seosan-dong, Yangsan-dong, the Construction Project for the Construction of the New Industrial Complex (hereinafter “Songsan-dong Industrial Complex”) awarded a contract for the said Construction Project to the Liquidation Comprehensive Construction Corporation (hereinafter “Construction”).
Liquidation integrated construction subcontracted part of packing construction in the Seocho Industrial Complex to the Yellow Industrial Complex Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yulsan Construction").
- On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract with the construction cost of KRW 1.32 billion (including value added tax) for the landscaping planting construction among the Seocho Industrial Complex construction (hereinafter “instant construction”). The said sub-subcontract changed the construction cost of KRW 572 million on January 26, 2016.
- The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around November 2016.
- The Plaintiff was paid KRW 430 million out of the construction price of the instant construction project from Yellow Mountain Construction.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 6, Eul evidence 1 (including, if any, a satisfy) and the purport before oral argument
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed, but the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 142 million out of the construction cost, and the Defendant, the ordering person, entered into a direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Defendant, the subcontractor, on the ground that there was a direct payment agreement under which the Defendant directly pays the construction cost (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, and the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder unpaid to the Plaintiff.
B. The following points are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the argument, namely, ① a written agreement on direct payment of the re-subcontract between the plaintiff and the defendant, contractor, contractor, subcontractor construction, subcontractor construction, subcontractor construction, and subcontractor, who is the ordering person, was prepared on December 17, 2015, and the content thereof is in the subcontract between the contractor and subcontractor.