beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단15720

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. A. Around September 1, 2014, Defendant (the former trade name: the national comprehensive construction of a major city company) subcontracted the construction work of metal windows, glass, etc. among D Corporation to B (C) in the form of KRW 435 million (excluding value-added tax).

[B] Around December 18, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract to increase the construction cost as KRW 648,400,000 (including value-added tax) with B and the above construction cost.

B around November 8, 2014, Plaintiff (mutual name: E) re-subcontracted the construction cost of the glass project subcontracted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (mutual name): 43.6 million won (value added tax).

C. On November 8, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff and B, and the Defendant notified the Defendant of the details of the Plaintiff’s subcontract construction and claimed the payment of the subcontract price according to the payment method and procedure.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant direct payment agreement”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute the instant direct payment agreement, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties as to the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings has completed the sub-subcontracted construction from Eul. The Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 43.6 million and the damages for delay.

According to the Defendant’s direct payment agreement of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the re-subcontract to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not claim the Defendant the re-subcontract to the Defendant.

Therefore, there is no obligation for the Defendant to pay the price under the instant direct payment agreement against the Plaintiff.

Judgment

In this case, the direct payment agreement of this case recognizes only the plaintiff's right to claim a direct payment of the construction price against the defendant, and the construction price against the defendant B.