채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiffs regarding the contract number F G works entered into with the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries on June 27, 2016.
On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) claimed by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a contract with the Southern-gun on the terms of contract amount of KRW 722,092,850, total construction completion amount of KRW 1,894,982,850, total construction completion amount of KRW 1,894,982,850, June 28, 2016; the date of completion of construction; June 22, 2017; the date of completion of construction; and December 14, 2018.
Plaintiff
A on July 28, 2016, Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) subcontracted each of the instant construction works to KRW 386,33,00 (including value-added tax), and reinforced concrete construction works to KRW 81,181,00.
Plaintiff
B, around April 2017, H entered into a construction delegation contract with the content that H will carry out the instant construction work.
However, the Defendants asserted that there exists a claim for the cost of equipment related to the instant construction works, but the Plaintiffs only engaged in each transaction described in the above A or C with respect to the instant construction works, and did not engage in any transaction with the Defendants.
In general, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). However, the Defendants asserted that they carried out transportation with a dump vehicle for the Plaintiffs at the construction site of this case, but the Defendants did not attend and submit the evidence on the above assertion on the date for pleading.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendants’ claims against the Plaintiffs regarding the instant construction work are created.
Therefore, there is no construction cost or goods payment obligation related to the instant construction project against the Defendants.
Nevertheless, the Defendants are arguing the existence of their claims against their plaintiffs.