beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a subcontract agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the following terms and conditions. The name of the subcontracted project: The construction period of the defect repair work (section 2): December 1, 2017; the contract amount on May 31, 2018: 220 million won: The payment of KRW 165 million within 60 days after the conclusion of the contract; and the payment of KRW 55 million at the completion of the construction;
B. On December 29, 2017, the Defendant drafted a letter of undertaking that “The Plaintiff will pay KRW 50 million for the instant construction work by the end of May 2018” to the Plaintiff.
C. On January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff received KRW 150 million from the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision on the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant with the amount claimed as KRW 150 million with the preserved claim (Seoul District Court Jinwon Branch Branch 2017Kadan3586), the claim amount of KRW 150 million, and the provisional seizure of the claim amount of KRW 150 million against the construction mutual aid association of the third debtor (Seoul District Court Jinwon Branch 2017Kadan3587).
The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to agree on the claim amount of KRW 300 million, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 220 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
The Defendant has to prepare a written contract for the instant construction contract in order to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20 million. The Plaintiff prepared a written contract for the said construction contract with the Defendant and filed an application for the provisional seizure against each of the above claims (hereinafter “provisional seizure against claim”) around January 2018, but filed an application for rescission of enforcement. However, the Defendant paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, and the remaining KRW 70 million was unpaid.
B. Since the Plaintiff did not perform the instant construction work, the Defendant may respond to the Plaintiff’s request.