2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 1, 2008, the defendant made 443,270,00 won (252,030,000 won of the contract amount of the non-party company, 191,240,000 won of the contract amount), the contract period of the non-party company B (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company" in the name of the company; hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") and C as joint beneficiaries (3rd company's share ratio: 56.86%: 30,000 won (the contract amount of the non-party company's contract amount of 252,030,000, 191,240,000 won) and the contract period of the non-party company from April 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008 (the contract period of the non-party company was extended to October 31, 2008).

B. The Plaintiff entered into a food supply contract to pack and transport E with the non-party company. From March 31, 2008 to July 2008, the Plaintiff supplied 53,830 stuffs to the non-party company. However, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 10,381,800 out of total goods price of KRW 43,206,570 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”).

C. However, around October 2008, the administrator of the non-party company was dismissed without permission, and the non-party company’s father’s work was suspended due to the non-party company’s failure to pay wages, and the representative was faced with the situation. As a result, C, the co-beneficiary of the instant service contract, applied for the change of co-beneficiary to the defendant, and around October 29, 2008, the co-beneficiary of the instant service contract changed from the non-party company to F.

D. Meanwhile, on October 15, 2008, after the non-party company ceased construction, the part of the non-party company's share (proprofed development, packaging, re-transfer, data reorganization, and route) was examined, and the remaining component was 51.509% of the total component up to the time and 129,817,200 won.

E. The instant reconstruction services were completed on November 25, 2008, and the F following the status of the non-party company was paid KRW 122,212,800 in balance after the birth (=252,030,000 in total amount of the original contract amount of the non-party company – KRW 129,817.200 in total amount of the non-party company).

F. On October 17, 2008, the Plaintiff, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Kadan93043, made the instant claim for the goods payment, and received a provisional attachment order as to the service payment claim against the Defendant of the non-party company on October 21, 2008. Upon the above decision served on the Defendant on October 21, 2008, the Defendant deposited the provisional attachment order with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 20716, Dec. 29, 2008, the difference of the advance payment amounting to KRW 126,015,00 for the non-party company’s progress payment amounting to KRW 3,802,200 (=129,817,200 - 126,015,000).

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

Under Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the Plaintiff sought payment of the price for the instant goods against the Defendant, the ordering person of the instant service contract.

On the other hand, the defendant paid 126,015,00 won out of the contract amount to the non-party company, who is the beneficiary, and deposited 3,802,200 won for the execution of the remaining ingredients as above. Thus, the defendant's obligation to pay the service payment to the non-party company was extinguished. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the service payment to the non-party company remains, without merit, is without merit.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the beneficiary of the instant service contract had already supplied at least 90% of the estimated transport portion prior to the replacement of the beneficiary, and C, a co-beneficiary, also completed most of the scheduled transport portion prior to the replacement of the beneficiary. Since the construction period after the replacement of the beneficiary, it is merely the degree of construction period after the replacement of the beneficiary, it cannot be believed that the non-party company’s raw elements under the instant service contract are merely 51,509%, and that the total service cost should exceed 90% of the total service cost. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Nos. 8,10, and 13 as a whole, the share portion under the instant service contract of the non-party company under the instant service contract is not merely a package or reorganization of E, but it appears that the part of the non-party company’s share is included in data reorganization and business invoice, etc., and there is no evidence to recognize the difference between the Plaintiff Company 1 and the total service cost and the service payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-tae

Judges Trial