beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.14 2017가단463

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2015, with respect to the construction of a newly built multi-household house on the ground of Gyeonggi-si C (hereinafter “instant construction project”), a contract for construction works with the contractor D, E, and F as G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) was concluded between the contractor and the contract price of KRW 1,460,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 7%), and the construction period from July 20, 2015 to October 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. Since then, the owner of the instant construction was changed to the defendant, and the defendant succeeded to the status of the contractor under the instant construction contract.

The instant corporation was completed on November 11, 2016.

C. On December 6, 2016, G transferred KRW 48,000,000, out of the construction cost due under the instant construction contract, to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer and reached that time.

【Facts without any dispute, Gap’s No. 1-1, 1-2, 2, 3, 8, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the parties concerned did not accept each of the instant arguments, but did not affect the conclusion of the instant case and arranged the arguments to the extent necessary to determine.

The Plaintiff asserts that, on July 20, 2015, G and the Defendant changed the instant construction cost to KRW 1,712,00,000,000, and G completed the instant construction work; and that, at the time of transferring the Plaintiff’s claim, at least the balance of the construction cost remains at least KRW 48,00,000, the Defendant is liable to pay the acquisition price to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) the instant construction contract was conducted by Nonparty H borrowed the name and license from Nonparty H, and only took over the Plaintiff’s invalid claim because G was not itself the contractor of the instant construction project at the beginning; and (b) even if G is the contractor of the instant construction project, the construction price includes value-added tax 7%. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1,562, 200.