공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,500,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 1, 2016 to June 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the owner of building B, the owner of building, and the owner of building C, and three parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction works”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) under the terms and conditions that the construction works are subcontracted (the commencement date of the construction works, March 15, 2014; April 30, 2014; the construction cost of KRW 110,00,000,000).
B. On March 2014, the Defendant concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff to transfer the status of contractor for the instant construction contract to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract acquisition agreement”).
C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction around May 2014.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, who did not pay the construction cost, seeking the payment of the construction cost as the main district court of Chuncheon District Court 2015dan5766.
On April 28, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claims on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a contractor of the instant construction contract (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the instant judgment became final and conclusive as it is, because it is difficult to recognize that B consented to the instant contract acquisition agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The acquisition of a contract, the purpose of which is to succeed to the status as a contracting party to the determination of the cause of the claim, is ordinarily to take place by a three-dimensional contract under the agreement of the transferor, transferee, and the remaining parties, and if two-party parties have prior to the agreement, the remaining parties shall consent or consent thereto. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to obtain the consent of B as to changing the status of the contractor of the instant construction contract to the plaintiff according to the contract acceptance agreement of this case.
However, on the ground that B did not consent to the contract acceptance agreement of this case, it is against B.