(영문) 전주지방법원 2012. 05. 25. 선고 2011가단36635 판결공사대금채권 중 일부가 소멸되었다고 볼 수 없음[국승]
No part of the claim for construction payment shall be deemed to have been extinguished.
In the instant case, the principal contractor’s notification of seizure order, etc. issued by the creditor, etc. of the principal contractor has changed whether or not the ordering person or the subcontractor may set up against the execution creditor, etc. within the scope of the subcontract price corresponding to the execution part of the subcontractor. As such, the said judgment cannot be asserted against the Defendants regarding the extinguishment of part of the contract price claim in the instant case.
2011 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money
AAAAg Greentech Co., Ltd.
BB General Construction, etc. and 17 others
May 4, 2012
May 25, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On September 16, 201, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do confirmed that the right to claim for payment of deposit of KRW 000 out of KRW 000 deposited by the Jeonju District Court No. 2011No. 3551 was the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
(a) Contract and subcontract for construction work;
On August 17, 2010, the Defendant Limited Company BB Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant BB Comprehensive Construction”) was contracted from Jeollabuk-do for construction cost of 00 won for the instant construction project, and the construction period from August 17, 2010 to February 15, 201, and the Plaintiff was subcontracted from the Defendant BB Comprehensive Construction to December 31, 201 for the roof of the instant construction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant roof construction”); and from December 2, 2010 to December 31, 201, the Plaintiff was subcontracted for construction cost of 00 won for the instant construction project from December 2, 2010 to December 31, 201.
(b) Preparation of direct payment agreements and construction completion thereof;
On December 2, 2010, the plaintiff and the defendant BB General Construction and Jeollabuk-do drafted a direct payment agreement on the subcontract price for roof construction (hereinafter referred to as "the roof construction price of this case") among the instant construction works, and the plaintiff completed the roof construction of this case on December 31, 2010."
"Around December 31, 2010 when the plaintiff completed the roof construction of this case, Defendant BB General Construction had a claim for construction price of KRW 160,004,200 against Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter referred to as "the claim for construction price of this case"). However, the remaining Defendants, the creditors of Defendant BB General Construction, have received each of the above orders, including provisional seizure, claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter referred to as "provisional seizure, etc. of this case"), and delivered each of the above orders and decisions to Jeollabuk-do as shown in the list of attached provisional seizure, etc.
On September 15, 2011, Jeollabuk-do deposited KRW 000 for the construction price for Defendant BB Integrated Construction on the ground that the order of priority cannot be known due to the direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ seizure, and the provisional seizure by this Court, as the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, and Statements A through 5, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings]
(e) Relevant laws;
Entry in the attached Form.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and the defendant BB General Construction and the third parties of Jeollabuk-do on the direct payment of the roof construction price of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff are corresponding to Article 14 (1) 2 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and the plaintiff's right to direct payment to Jeollabuk-do has occurred immediately after the direct payment agreement, and the plaintiff has expired 00 won equivalent to the roof construction price of this case out of the construction price claim of this case, retroactively from December 2, 2010 when the plaintiff completed the roof construction of this case. However, the decision delivered to Jeollabuk-do prior to December 2, 2010, among the provisional attachment and provisional attachment decision of the defendants, is merely the provisional attachment decision of the defendant Da, and the plaintiff can oppose the other defendants except the above Da, and even if this amount of credit amount of the above DaD out of the construction price claim of this case, the remaining amount of the construction price claim of this case should be deducted to 000 won (00 won,000 won,000 won,000 won) and the remainder of the provisional attachment.
B. Determination
First, regarding the plaintiff's direct payment of the construction cost of 00 won, and the time of provisional attachment 200 won, and the purport of Paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act is 000, and the ordering person shall pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor by 00, and it is reasonable to interpret that the defendants' obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor directly is extinguished within the range of 00,000 won for the above construction cost of 00 won, and that the defendants' claim for provisional attachment 1 was extinguished by 00,000 won for the above construction cost of 10,000 won, 20,000 won for the above construction cost of 20,000 won for the above construction cost of 0,00 won for the above construction cost of 20,000 won for the above construction cost of 20,000 won for the above construction cost of 20,000 won for the defendants, as so decided by the court below.
Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.