부당이득금반환
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The judgment of the court below
A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts by citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
(1) On February 1, 2005, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the construction work of “Am-free distance or shopping No. 1” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to the Codefendant Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “St Construction”) for the first instance trial, which was conducted in the Seongdong-gu, Ulsan-gu, Sungnam-dong, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “St Construction”).
(2) On February 28, 2005, Gyeong Construction entered into a subcontract agreement with Defendant Lex, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Lex”), setting the steel frame part of the instant construction as a subcontract price of KRW 381,780,000, and entered into a subcontract agreement with Defendant Lex, upon which Defendant Lex would be directly paid the subcontract price from the Plaintiff on March 2, 2005, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact of entering into the subcontract agreement.
(3) On May 10, 2005, the Daeup Construction entered into a subcontract agreement with Defendant Lee Labor Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Labor Industry”) on the condition that construction cost of the instant construction shall be KRW 911,90,900,900 for the temporary metal roof and home miscellaneous construction during the instant construction, and at the same time, Defendant Lee Labor Industry would not raise any objection even if it is paid directly by the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact of concluding the subcontract.
(4) On April 11, 2005, under the Ulsan District Court Decision 2005Kadan3514 decided on April 11, 2005, the defendant, the plaintiff, the third debtor, the preserved right of the debtor and the provisionally attached claim amounting to KRW 23,760,000 among the claim for construction price in the construction site of this case, the provisional attachment order of the above provisional attachment was served on the plaintiff around that time.
Ors shall be the same court of June 12, 2006 2006 Tai3282.