공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) subcontracted a roof flag and construction work among the new kindergarten construction works in the Damsan-si, Gyeongsan-si, which was built by the Defendant, to the end of February 2013; and (b) failed to receive KRW 31 million out of the construction cost; and (c) failed to receive the said construction cost.
(C) fact that there is no dispute, Gap No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings). 2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription - The defendant asserts that the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has expired with respect to the plaintiff's claim for construction
First of all, the claim for the construction cost of subcontract is a claim subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 of the Civil Act, and since the time when the construction work completion when the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff was completed on February 2, 2013, it is apparent that the extinctive prescription of the instant lawsuit has expired on June 30, 2017.
On October 2013, the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 31 million to the Plaintiff when the Defendant received the payment of the construction cost from the owner in a lawsuit from the owner of the building. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff asked the head of the office of the D Attorney-at-law office at the end of the month to ask the project owner at the time when the lawsuit with the owner is terminated. However, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is unreasonable.
However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the same applies to the time when the Defendant promised to pay the construction cost at the end of October 2013, and the three-year extinctive prescription has already expired. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was any circumstance to prevent the Defendant from claiming extinctive prescription at the time within three years retroactively from the date of filing the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's counterclaim, and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is reasonable.
3. Conclusion against the Plaintiff (Completion of Extinctive Prescription)