logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014나3000
청구이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction work for remodeling D Building in Chuncheon (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 159,500,000 for construction cost.

B. (i) On October 25, 2012, K supplied the necessary stone worth KRW 29 million at the construction site of this case, and the Defendant supplied tin poppy and 7,700,000 won as materials necessary for tin works on the same day.

Luxembourg and the Defendant issued a tax invoice with respect to the amount of goods described in the above (i) as the person to whom the Plaintiff was supplied, but did not receive the price.

On December 26, 2012, K transferred to the Defendant a claim for the price of goods based on the supply of stone on October 25, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant’s District Court No. 2013 tea153 against the Plaintiff.

A request for payment order for the payment of KRW 36,70,000,000,000 for the goods price and the transfer price stated in the Paragraph (hereinafter “instant goods price”). On January 18, 2013, the above court issued a payment order ordering the Plaintiff to pay the above money (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Defendant. The above payment order was finalized around that time.

On March 7, 2013, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s right to claim the recovery of deposit money from the Republic of Korea by the Jung-gu District Court 2013TTT 3582 upon the instant payment order, and accordingly, collected KRW 36.7 million from the Republic of Korea on March 12, 2013, and reported the collection to the above court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the construction of this case was subcontracted to E, and E subcontracted the part of tin work to L, and the defendant and K supplied materials necessary for the above tin work to L.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the price of the instant goods.

arrow