구상금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant B, C, D, F, and G, the part against the said Defendants shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The New Construction Corporation (1) of this case, the Defendants (including Defendant E and the Defendants, including the Appointed Party E and the Appointed Party H; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the nine non-party I were sectional owners of each of the nine members of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J Apartment House. Meanwhile, I’s sectional ownership was transferred to K around February 22, 2011.
(B) On November 30, 2010, the owner of the sectional ownership in the part I awarded a contract for the instant new construction work to the Dai General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dai General Construction”) on December 3, 2010, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and 19 co-owners; and (b) the sectional owners decided to remove the said multi-household housing and build 20 households in total for the two multi-households (hereinafter referred to as the “multi-households”). (b) the owner of the instant new construction work was awarded a contract for the instant new construction work to the Doi General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dai General Construction”) on December 3, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”); (c) the construction cost should be paid in lieu of the 11 households remaining nine households owned by each sectional owner among the newly built multi-households.
(3) On December 24, 2010, the Postal Construction started the instant new construction project, but its construction was suspended due to the shortage of funds due to the progress of approximately 60% to 70%. The subcontractors, who did not receive the construction cost, demanded the payment of the subcontract price to the sectional owners, the original contractor.
B. The completion of the instant new construction project (1) was closed on March 31, 2013, and the registration of construction was revoked on November 30, 2013.
(2) After suspending the instant new construction, the Defendants continued to perform the instant new construction by directly paying the construction cost to the subcontractors of the Postal Comprehensive Construction with loans granted after suspending the instant new construction work, and completed the instant new construction work on February 12, 2015.