beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 368,500,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of this Court as of January 11, 2017, and the entire purport of the pleading.
Around January 204, the Defendants concluded a contract with the joint contractors (hereinafter “instant joint contractors”) with respect to “road construction works between two and two streets,” which are ordered by the Daejeon Regional Land Management Agency of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, by means of a joint performance method (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. The representative of the instant joint contractors is the Gyeongnam Company, the internal share ratio is 88% of the Gyeongnam Company, 5% of the Defendant New General Construction Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Madern Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 7% of the Defendant Hanjin Construction Industry Co., Ltd.
C. On June 18, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with Sejong-nam company on February 3, 2012 (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with respect to the construction work of Sambong-2, gral, gral, and Docul and Docul, with respect to the construction work of soil and structures in the instant original contract, and the total construction cost of which was KRW 6,561,50,000, and the due date for completion was within 60 days after the acquisition of the object once a month, and finally entered into a modified contract on several occasions (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The instant subcontract agreement and the modified contract are written only as the subcontractor.
On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff had been performing the instant construction project, by applying for corporate rehabilitation procedures for the company:
4.7. The decision of commencing rehabilitation procedures was made on February 3, 2016, and the decision of rehabilitation plans was made on February 3, 2016.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Summary of the parties' arguments 1. The plaintiff 1.