logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.08.12 2015가단3262
공사직불대금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “A”) for the construction of the Cheongdong Urban Residential Housing, and the Plaintiff awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff for the construction cost of KRW 46,217,600 during the said new construction work.

The Plaintiff’s completion of the construction of the Exposure mining around November 25, 2014, but received from A is merely KRW 13,300,000.

On December 23, 2014, A was unable to pay the remainder of the subcontract price to the Plaintiff, and A drafted a written statement of direct payment of the construction price to the effect that the Defendant, the ordering person, consented to the payment of the subcontract price to the Plaintiff directly.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay directly to the Plaintiff the remainder of 32,917,600 won (=46,217,600 won - 13,300,000 won) and damages for delay.

B. The scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff (subcontractor) is limited to the Defendant’s obligation to pay the subcontract price to A (contractor).

However, until December 23, 2014, for which the Plaintiff asserted that he/she requested a direct refusal, the Defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the construction price to A any longer if the amount of the construction price extinguished by offsetting the amount of the construction price paid by the Defendant to A or its subcontractors by offsetting the amount of the compensation for delay.

Therefore, the defendant has no reason to respond to the plaintiff's request.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for determination is based on the premise that the Defendant was liable to pay the construction cost to A even before December 23, 2014, and thus, is accordingly examined.

First, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the Defendant’s obligation for the construction cost to A is KRW 6.52 billion (i.e., the amount of KRW 6.., the amount of KRW 6.3 billion, the amount of KRW 22 billion, the amount of KRW 50 million, and the amount of KRW 50 million, which can be seen as the subsequent payment of the construction cost).

The following shall be the Parties:

arrow