전부금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;
A. On April 20, 201, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) subcontracted to the same construction company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for KRW 266,200,000 of the first construction contract amount, and KRW 568,800,000 of the second construction contract amount, among the “C Road Packing Works” contracted by Gyeonggi-do from the Defendant Company, to the same construction company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).
(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The instant subcontract stipulates that the completed amount shall be paid once a month.
B. On May 13, 2011, Defendant Specialized Construction Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter “Defendant Specialized Construction Mutual Aid Association”) issued each contract guarantee to guarantee the Defendant Company B’s obligation to the instant construction project during the period from April 20, 201 to July 30, 201, setting the guarantee amount of KRW 26,620,00 for the primary construction project, the guarantee amount of KRW 56,880,000 for the secondary construction project, and the guarantee period from April 20 to July 30, 2013.
(hereinafter “this case’s guarantee agreement”). (c)
B paid to the Defendant Company KRW 50,00,000 for the first instance payment on April 29, 201, and KRW 40,000 for the second instance payment on May 31, 2011, and KRW 35,000 for the third instance payment on June 30, 201, respectively.
B was in default on January 27, 2012, and submitted a written waiver of construction to Gyeonggi-do on March 5, 2012.
E. On May 8, 2012, the supervisor D of the instant construction project, E, the representative director F, and the representative G of the Construction Mutual Aid Association, etc. conducted an inspection of the origin of the instant construction project.
A responsible supervisor H, B representative F, and construction mutual aid association’s representative G agreed that the existing rate of “C-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A
Although I, who is an employee of the defendant company, was present at the above preliminary examination, the defendant company did not consent to the result of the preliminary examination.
F. B: (a) on May 21, 2012, the Defendant Company was found to have completed the payment for the completed portion of KRW 8,270,000 in accordance with the non-performance ratio of the Defendant Company, which was confirmed by the foregoing pre-qualification examination.