beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.06.08 2015가합10133

공사대금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. On August 2012, the Plaintiff claimed that: (a) the Defendant was selected as successful bidder at the bidding of the Maritime D.C.M. Basic Construction Works (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction phase 1 phase of Incheon International Passenger Port (hereinafter “SP”); and (b) the Defendant entered into the first, second, and third subcontract for the instant construction works with the Defendant; (c) around November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff delayed construction works due to the Defendant’s fault and limited access to the Plaintiff’s construction site due to the delay of construction works (hing works) and the Plaintiff’s restriction on the Plaintiff’s entry into the construction site on around 32.5 days; and (d) the Plaintiff had the obligation to compensate for all kinds of equipment and expenses incurred in waiting at the construction site, such as equipment and expenses for equipment, indirect labor costs, KRW 81,537,691, food and accommodation expenses, expenses incurred in relation to accommodation, expenses incurred in relation to accommodation, expenses incurred in relation to accommodation, etc.; and

B. If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The obligor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim, and such matters pertaining to the requirements for the lawsuit, and the court shall ex officio investigate and determine them.

(2) In cases where a third party obligor indicated the amount to be paid to the obligor as a seized claim according to the conclusion of the judgment, the claim under the substantive law, which is the subject matter of the relevant lawsuit, becomes subject to a collection order and seizure of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da40444, Apr. 28, 201). According to the letter of decision on the seizure of the claim and collection order submitted by the supplementary intervenor along with the written application for participation and the delivery certificate, the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor, on November 22, 2017, submitted by the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor to the obligor, the Defendant, the third obligor, the claim amount KRW 1,141,281,246, Nov. 22, 2017.