logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.21 2018가단5104118
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant contracted the “B Corporation” (hereinafter “instant construction”) to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and D Co., Ltd. as a joint contract period from November 18, 2015 to June 9, 2017, with the contract amount of KRW 3,388,761,000.

The representative contractor of the above contract is C in charge of the type of construction and civil engineering, the contract amount of the type of civil engineering works is 3,158,542,00 won, and D decided to take charge of the type of mechanical equipment construction work business.

B. On January 2, 2017, C provided that, during the construction period of the instant construction, C subcontracted to the Plaintiff with “from January 2, 2017 to March 31, 2017,” the contract amount of KRW 198,000,000, and the contract amount of KRW 236,507,113 (Evidence A 3) (including value-added tax of KRW 18,00,000).”

C around January 19, 2017, upon notifying the Defendant of the subcontract contents with the Plaintiff, submitted a direct payment agreement of subcontract consideration based on Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

The defendant agreed to the direct payment agreement between C and the plaintiff.

C. On April 29, 2017, C and the Plaintiff drafted a subcontract agreement to change the construction period of the said subcontract to “from January 2, 2017 to June 9, 2017,” and to “338,000,000 won for the relevant portion of contract that C received from the Defendant,” the contract amount to “325,753,277 won (Evidence A 3)” (including value-added tax 30,727,273 won).

C around May 21, 2017, around May 21, 2017, notified the Defendant of the terms of the subcontract modification contract.

C and the Plaintiff prepared a direct payment agreement (direct payment) on May 29, 2017 that the subcontract consideration shall be paid directly to the subcontractor pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 14 of the Subcontract Act, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

On June 1, 2017, the defendant reviews the contents of the modified contract and lawful.

arrow