채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition as follows.
2. The following details are added to the part of the first instance court's decision that is dismissed or added between the 8th instance court's 13th and 14th, and the 14th instance court's 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th
4) On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that “The director in charge of the Gyeonggi-nam Facilities Group, the ordering authority, was replaced with the Plaintiff regarding the situation at the time of claiming the payment for the completed portion on March 6, 2014. Unlike the transfer, the director in charge of the replaced division decided not to pay the payment for the completed portion before reaching the maturity rate, it cannot be paid upon the Plaintiff’s request, and (a) the rehabilitation company can only pay the Plaintiff only if it pays the flag at the ordering authority.” On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff sent documents to the rehabilitation company (Evidence A7). According to the agreement and review process on both sides, the Plaintiff’s request for the payment for the rehabilitation company through consultation and review process, taking into account the existing circumstances of the region where the payment for the completed portion was completed for five months before the date of the replacement, and the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that the Plaintiff’s payment for the completed portion was unlawful by failing to comply with the existing practice between the rehabilitation company and the ordering authority.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the instant subcontract specifies the ordering person as the “national financial management body”.