양수금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On March 17, 2004, the Sejong District Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Saju”) concluded a construction contract with the Defendant under which the construction of the reconstruction apartment of the 1st apartment complex was awarded a contract with the Defendant, and continued the construction work on October 30, 2006 when applying for corporate rehabilitation around October 30, 2006.
On October 30, 2006, the Sejong Central District Court 2006 Ma12 filed an application for corporate rehabilitation on November 24, 2006, and was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on July 24, 2006, and the Defendant terminated the said construction contract from the Defendant on July 8, 2007, and was authorized to implement the rehabilitation plan on December 7, 2007, but was decided to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure on April 21, 201, on May 9, 201, the Seoul Central District Court 201Hahap53 filed an application for corporate bankruptcy with the Seoul Central District Court 201Hahap53 on May 21, 201.
At the time of the discontinuance of the above construction work, Sejong District paid KRW 45,728,363,201 for the construction cost of the above apartment, and lent KRW 21,708,141,702 to the Defendant as business expenses, but only KRW 59,261,584,111 was paid by the Defendant and was not paid KRW 8,174,920,792.
On September 23, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract on the instant apartment construction works with Sejong Chang-gu with respect to the sculpture, aesthetic, and waterproof construction works, and performed the said construction works from around that time until October 30, 2006, which is the time of discontinuance of the said construction works.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 9, 10, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 1,574,105,314 won for the subcontract price payable to the plaintiff who is the subcontractor pursuant to Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, since the plaintiff was not paid 8,175,00,000 won for the construction price by the defendant at the time of the discontinuance of the above construction work.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim as follows.
The defendant shall pay the construction price to the Chang Chang at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work.