logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.08.22 2017가단2122
공사대금
Text

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,142,60 and the interest rate thereon from November 24, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2016, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) entered into a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for a new E construction project in macroscopous D (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On May 18, 2016, Defendant B entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the Plaintiff on a cost of KRW 370 million for steel works during the said new construction works (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

C. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost of KRW 32,142,600 with Defendant B by performing a steel framed construction for neighborhood living facilities on the fourth-story rooftop of the building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

However, Defendant B rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant C would pay the instant construction cost directly to the Plaintiff. Defendant C had already paid the instant construction cost to Defendant B, and refused the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B was included in the instant subcontract with respect to Defendant B, and that Defendant C was held jointly and severally liable for the instant construction cost on the basis of the direct non-performance commitment to the instant construction cost. As to this, Defendant B asserted that the instant construction work among the steel works was not included in the instant contract as a matter of construction permit, and that the contractual party to the instant construction work could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff and Defendant C were the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, Defendant C promised to pay the instant construction cost to Defendant B, including the instant construction cost, and directly pay the Plaintiff the construction cost.

arrow