채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiff’s primary claim against Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. and Preliminary Defendant Co., Ltd.
1. On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff was subcontracted to USD 15,761,299 for the instant construction work, in which the Defendant Hyundai Construction Company (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Construction”) and Samsung C&T Company constituted a joint supply and demand organization (Braka New C&C project in the U.S.A. Pluxa New C&D project) and Samsung C&T Company were working for a joint supply and demand organization.
On December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff, while implementing the instant construction, entrusted the manufacturing of 4 air-conditioning seasons ( equipment number CCH-01-1, CTS-01-2, CTS-01-2, CTS-02, CTS-03) to Defendant License Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant License”).
On January 18, 2012, Defendant License re-entrusted the manufacture of air-resistant habits to the fathersung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “sub-subsidiary”)
On September 2012, the Plaintiff supplied four air-resistant navigation habitss from Defendant Ireland installed in a bonded warehouse around September 2012, and the bonded warehouse was completed around that time.
(A) On January 23, 2013, when the Plaintiff completed the entire construction of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) and the insured to ensure the performance of the repair of defects caused by the instant construction project as Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) and as one other (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”), and issued the insurance policy to the Defendant Hyundai Construction.
On January 15, 2014, Defendant Hyundai Construction requested the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground that there was a defect in the goods listed in the [Attachment 1] list among four air-resistant navigation habitss installed by the Plaintiff in Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “this case’s sea-resistant navigation practice”).
The Defendant Hyundai Construction was unable to normally operate three air-resistant navigation habitss of this case. Around August 2014, Defendant Hyundai Construction replaced all of the air-resistant navigation habitss of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] A-3, A-14, B-14, B-1-5, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Regarding the defendant Hyundai Construction.