beta
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2015.11.26 2014나4236

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of money that orders the following payments to the defendant Ho Construction Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 2012, the Korean Land and Housing Corporation Co., Ltd. in the first instance trial entered into a contract with Defendant Han River Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han River Construction Co., Ltd.”) and same-sex Construction Co., Ltd. as co-contractor with respect to C-Jin Construction, and the said co-contractor entered into a subcontract with Defendant Seoho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sejong Construction”) with respect to the said part of the said construction, subject to the approval of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

B. On July 10, 2012, when Plaintiff B registered his/her mother as Plaintiff A with the trade name “E” and actually operated the said company, Plaintiff B entered into a sub-subcontract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the construction period as to Defendant C Construction and Port D (hereinafter “instant construction”) from July 10, 2012 to June 10, 2013, with the Plaintiff’s agent capacity as Plaintiff A, a business operator of E, for the construction period of the instant construction work, and the construction cost of the instant construction work from July 10, 2012 to June 10, 2013 (excluding value-added tax). In fact, Plaintiff A did not perform the instant construction work in accordance with the instant contract.

C. Meanwhile, the instant construction was completed on November 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Sejong Construction

A. The Plaintiff B, based on the premise of the completion of the instant construction, had completed the instant construction on November 30, 2013, including the modified portion among the instant construction drawings, and only KRW 1,317,327,070, out of the total construction cost that reflects the increased price in design modification from the Defendant Hoho Construction, was paid. As such, Defendant Hoho Construction primarily executed the instant construction to the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff, as a preliminary owner.