공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts - On June 13, 201, the Plaintiff contracted with the Defendant for 225,000,000 won for the 225,000,000 won for the construction of a new warehouse warehouse in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiff completed the construction on August 6, 201.
Accordingly, the defendant did not pay 72,500,000 won out of the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff.
On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of claims with the Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan1493, which made the instant construction cost as the preserved right. On January 11, 2018, the said court rendered a decision of provisional seizure of claims (hereinafter “decision of provisional seizure of claims”). -
On August 7, 2018, the Defendant filed an objection against the provisional seizure order of this case with Seoul Central District Court 2018Kadan20155, and the above court revoked the provisional seizure order of this case on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the land of this case, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for provisional seizure, and the above decision became final and conclusive at that time.
On the other hand, on February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with Seoul Central District Court 2018Kadan13323, and the said court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of violation of jurisdiction and transferred the instant case to the instant court on June 5, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined the instant construction cost of KRW 72,50,000 and interest thereon from December 31, 2011 to February 27, 2018, together with KRW 97,683,698, and damages for delay therefrom.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the construction cost of the instant unclaimed amount of KRW 72,500,000 has been recognized, but the said construction cost has expired by prescription.
The plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the provisional seizure of this case, and the defendant revoked the decision of provisional seizure of this case in a lawsuit of objection against provisional seizure for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the interruption of prescription is effective pursuant to Article 175 of the Civil Act.