공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers), together with the purport of the whole pleadings:
around May 2014, the Defendant and the non-party Sambu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Thobu Construction”) were the representative of Sambu Construction from the original local land management authority, and was awarded a contract for construction cost of the construction cost of the National Highway 6-T-T-2 National Highway Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “original contract construction”) with the joint execution method in KRW 59,286,653,116, and the construction period from May 23, 2014 to January 31, 2018.
B. From December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff performed a construction project to accept a subcontract with the subcontract price of KRW 990,000,000 for the subcontract price and the construction period from December 26, 2014 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 190,209,530 for the subcontract price.
C. On August 17, 2015, Sambu case filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures due to aggravation of management status and began rehabilitation procedures as of September 3, 2015.
(Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10025). 2. Claims and judgments thereon
A. The plaintiff alleged in the party owner's assertion that three cases form a joint contractor with the defendant and entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff as a manager. Since the plaintiff did not request a direct payment of the subcontract price to the project owner and the plaintiff still remains liable for the payment of the subcontract price to the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that three cases and three cases are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the subcontract price to the plaintiff 187,170,290,290 won and delay damages payable to the plaintiff and 190,209,530 won.
In regard to this, the defendant around April 2015, the original local land management office, the principal contractor, and the subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractor.