The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 82,456,017 as well as to September 9, 2016 as from October 2, 2015 to September 9, 2016.

6% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(d)

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be 1/10, and the remainder shall be the Plaintiff.

Overhead of the cost of participation, 1/10 of the cost of participation shall be borne by the intervenor joining the Plaintiff, and Nas.

each of the defendants shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s purport and purport of the instant claim as to KRW 93,553,475 to the Plaintiff from September 1, 2013, as well as the instant claim

6% per annum from the following day to the date of service of a copy of the application for change of the cause of the claim; and

20% interest shall be paid in 20% interest.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay more than KRW 22,800,613.

The part against which the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part is dismissed.

The total amount of the issuing price of invoice and tax payment;

Won 25,042,600 on September 28, 2012: < Amended by Act No. 1137, Oct. 31, 2012; Act No. 11351, Oct. 25, 2012>

1. November 11, 2012, 200 won, October 11, 2012

41,074,00 won on October 31, 2012

November 20, 2012 KRW 50,049,212, Nov. 30, 2012

on November 30, 2012 KRW 53,785,600

56,422,300 won on January 2, 2013: 4. 43, 621,120 won on January 4, 2013

KRW 31,980,00 on February 8, 2013, KRW 12,017,50 on March 31, 2013

KRW 5,000,000 on April 30, 2013, 200

65,925,695 won on July 18, 2013. 10,000 won on May 13, 2013

7,000,000 won on September 17, 2013

Joint 318,611,907 Won 225,058,432

A. On June 2012, the Defendant shall do so on the ground of the Papju 8 ground Papju Gaon Papju, which was ordered at Papju City around June 2012.

The Gu Funeral Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation of this case") is awarded a contract, and it is no corporation on July 30, 2012

It was awarded a subcontract in the amount of KRW 259,600,000 for construction cost to the Young Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "Construction") and 2012.

8. The work price has increased to KRW 469,950,420.

B. On the other hand, the defendant could not give a subcontract for Aa construction externally due to a violation of law, etc.

La Construction’s staff as the Defendant’s on-site director, and in fact, the instant construction

A. A Construction is in progress, but a tax invoice for an enterprise participating in the instant construction is in the name of the Defendant.

The defendant issued the shares and paid the shares directly to the Corporation.

C. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor engaged in the business of leasing construction equipment under the trade name of “aaa development mid-term”, whichever is earlier.

Construction equipment, etc. shall be leased from September 11, 2012 to June 11, 2013 at the construction site of the case, and construction equipment, etc. shall be leased to the construction site of the case.

9. From 28. to July 18, 2013, a tax invoice was issued to the Defendant as described below:

J. The defendant's assistance to the plaintiff in part of the payment for the construction work of this case (hereinafter referred to as "construction work of this case").

A. The payment was made to A.I.

D. 12 national taxes, including value-added tax and global income tax, on August 28, 2014 by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor

190,067,650 won was delinquent, and the head of the high-sea tax office affiliated with the plaintiff was the plaintiff's assistant on March 26, 2014.

Attachment of the Intervenor’s claim for the construction cost of this case against the Defendant, and attachment to the Defendant on March 28, 2014

On March 31, 2014, a notice of attachment was issued to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 and 18 (if any, a tentative number)

Each entry, the testimony of Park Jae-a of the first instance witness, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above basic facts, the Corporation against the defendant of the plaintiff's assistant intervenor

Amounting to KRW 93,553,475 out of total 318,61,907 (=318,611,907) - 225,058,432

2) If the plaintiff seizes the above claims upon the disposition of default, the seizure shall be notified to the defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is the plaintiff who becomes the collection right holder under the National Tax Collection Act.

In addition, the amount of KRW 93,53,475 and 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act for the foregoing KRW 93,53,475 and its amount

There is an obligation to pay the estimated damages for delay.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion

1) The construction cost between the Defendant and A Construction is KRW 469,950,420, and the Defendant’s following (2)

payment to A. A.D. and direct payment to the sub-contractor of A. A.D., as described in

If one construction cost is combined, 469,365,004 won. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure to pay for Aa construction.

The construction cost shall be KRW 585,376 (=469,950,420 - KRW 469,365,004). Accordingly, the defendant shall accordingly be liable to pay the construction cost.

the Plaintiff’s Intervenor only to the extent of KRW 585,376,00 not paid for a construction

In this case, the Corporation is obligated to pay the construction cost of the case.

2) In addition, 54,141,825 won (=31,341,212 won) + 22,800,613 of the instant construction cost as follows:

1) If the Plaintiff’s Intervenor issues a tax invoice to the Defendant and claims the payment thereof, the construction cost corresponding thereto at the end of the following month at the Defendant’s request.

In full view of the fact that the payment of the construction price of this case was made, July 18, 2013 that the plaintiff issued the last tax invoice to the defendant.

It is reasonable to view it as August 31, 2013, which is the end of the following month.

b) must be deducted;

A) Since the Defendant could not externally enter into a subcontract for Aa Construction, it is for A A Construction.

In order to pay the advance payment for the construction cost, October 15, 2012 (11, 292,000) from the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

After issuance of each tax invoice of November 20, 2012 (50,049,212) and each tax invoice of November 20, 2012 (50,049,212), the tax invoice

61,341,212 won pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid to the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff shall be a construction

The Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid advance payment from the Defendant for Aa Construction

61,341,212 Won 30,000,000

The Defendant did not pay KRW 31,341,212 to the Intervenor. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay KRW 31,341,212 to the Intervenor.

The claim for the return of unjust enrichment by the Board and the claim for the construction payment of this case with its automatic claim

set-off from a equivalent amount.

B) On October 1, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 22,800,613 to the Plaintiff, while proceeding the instant lawsuit.

As such, the above KRW 22,80,613 should also be deducted from the construction cost of this case.

B. Determination

1) First, the Defendant’s payment of the instant construction cost within the scope of the construction cost for AA Construction

I examine whether there is anything free of charge.

Basic facts, Gap evidence 10, 12, 14 through 24 (including each number) above

Each statement, the following facts recognized by the purport of the testimony and the entire pleading of the witness of the first instance court:

In other words, the defendant ordered the construction of this case to aa Construction, and aa Construction was ordered to the defendant

In fact, the construction of this case is being carried out through the Park Ga dispatched, and such Park Ga is vacant to the defendant

If a participant company claims progress payment, the defendant approved the payment, on the other hand, the plaintiff's assistant.

A. He shall supply construction equipment, etc. to the site of this case, and Park a from the first day of each month to the last day of the

settlement of the cost of equipment leasing and verification of the details of transaction, work certificate, etc., and determination to the defendant;

The defendant, upon approval of this, contact with the plaintiff's assistant participant and tax in proportion to the amount of tax.

A statement shall be issued and paid directly by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the last day of the following month.

In full view of the facts, the Defendant’s payment of the instant construction cost to the Intervenor.

It is reasonable to see that there is no interest within the scope of the construction cost for the defendant's Aa Construction at that time.

There was a separate agreement to pay the price of the case, or as to Aa Construction by the defendant

Within the scope of the construction cost, legal provisions that regard the defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost of this case

Since there is no basis for recognition, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) Next, we examine the assertion of mutual aid.

A) First, the existence of the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 31,341,212 against the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

with respect to the Department, the Defendant’s advance payment for the construction cost to AA Construction through the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

shall be paid to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in accordance with the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

of this case, the plaintiff's assistant participant shall pay it to Aa Construction, and the plaintiff's assistant participant shall

Each of October 15, 2012 (11,292,000 won) and November 20, 2012 (50,049,212 won) to the defendant

61,341,212 won under the tax invoice issued by the Defendant and received by the Defendant

2) Each entry in Gap evidence 9, 10, and 25 (including each number) is not in dispute between the parties.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and Aa Construction from the above KRW 61,341,212

5,576,474 Won 5,764,738 remaining 5,764,738

After agreement to pay only KRW 55,00,000,000, the Intervenor’s Intervenor is a de facto representative of Aa Construction

A. 10,00,000 won on November 5, 2012, 2000 on December 3, 2012, 42,00,000 won on December 3, 2012, and 14, 2012

2) The Defendant alleged that the first instance court paid it as an advance payment to the Intervenor assisting the Plaintiff at the first instance court, and that it was on the second day for pleading of the first instance court.

The payment made as an advance payment for the construction was modified.

The annual interest rate of the principal and the date of appropriation

Date of Appropriation of Performance

Principal of Standard

Interest

Date of Appropriation of Performance

Standard persons

Pedics

Amount equal to the satisfaction of the

First, after appropriation of interest

Interest Balance

Principal:

Amount to be appropriated

After appropriation of principal

Principal Balance

93,553,475 won 2013-9-16% 2015-11,703,155 won 22,80,613 won 11,097,458 won 82,456,017 won

It is recognized that the above 5,00,000 won was paid for each payment of KRW 3,00,000,000.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is reasonable to deem that the supplementary intervenor paid all advance payments to Aa Construction.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's Intervenor does not exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of set-off is without merit.

B) Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. B No. 13, the defendant is proceeding in the lawsuit of this case on 2015.

10. 1. It is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,80,613 to the Plaintiff. As such, Article 479(1) of the Civil Act provides that the payment shall be made.

(1) If such appropriation is made in the order of damages for delay and the principal of the contract of this case, the following [Attachment]

as the same shall apply.

Therefore, the defendant's 82,456,017 won and its related costs from October 2, 2015 to the plaintiff

On September 2016, 2016, which is the date of adjudication of the competent court, to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.

9. Cases concerning the promotion of legal proceedings, etc., as provided for in the Commercial Act, 6% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Every 20% of the annual 20% of the amounts prescribed by the applicable law, shall be liable to pay damages for delay, in excess

The defendant's assertion of deduction is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the above-mentioned money in the judgment of the court of first instance is not sufficient.

As such, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked, and the defendant's Na

(s) The appeal against the machine shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.