beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim that has been reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
In this case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a contract with the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D’s New Living Facilities Construction Project (hereinafter “instant construction”) on September 30, 2012 (including value-added tax) to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City D’s New Living Facilities Construction Project (hereinafter “B”).
B. The Plaintiff received a subcontract for the instant construction project from B on April 6, 2012, and the instant construction project was completed on October 30, 2012, and the construction cost unpaid to B at the time was KRW 229,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant construction payment”).
C. On May 9, 2013, B: (a) drafted a written consent from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff consented to the payment of the instant balance of the construction project from the Defendant directly; (b) on August 21, 2013, B transferred the instant claim for the remainder of the construction project to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer of the instant claim”); and (c) notified the Defendant of the fixed date regarding the said transfer of the claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to seek payment of KRW 195,743,200, which deducts 33,256,800 won of defect repair costs from the above 229,00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff lawfully acquired the claim for the remainder of the construction project of this case, and damages for delay.
B. A summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Since multiple rulings of seizure, including the Dobong Trade Co., Ltd. and the order of seizure and collection against the claim for the remainder of the construction of this case before the assignment of the claim of this case exist, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. 2) Despite the above seizure and collection order, despite the remainder of the part that the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendant despite the above seizure and collection order, the damages for delay arising from the delay of construction between 30 days (=i.e., KRW 760,000 x 1/1,000 x 30 days x 135,000), and the defect repair cost (30 days) were generated, and thus, the damage claim and the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment are reasonable.