logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가단104273
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a gas facility construction business (e.g., liquid petroleum, urban gas, high-pressure gas), and the Defendant is a company with the main purpose of housing construction business, building construction business, etc.

B. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to subcontract urban gas pipeline works (hereinafter “instant pipeline works”) among Jeju-si D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. After November 22, 2018, the Defendant entered into a subcontract alteration agreement that maintains the original contract (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with the Plaintiff from KRW 181,50,00 to KRW 190,443,00 for additional contract amounting to KRW 190,40 for additional contract amounting to KRW 181,50,00, for the extension of the approval for use, from April 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018 to November 22, 2018.

Upon completion of the pipeline construction of this case, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the said contract amount to the Defendant, and received a total of KRW 144,800,000 from March 29, 2018 to October 25, 2018 as the contract price.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff concluded the instant subcontract with the Defendant and completed the instant pipeline construction. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the contract price of KRW 45,643,00 (= contract price of KRW 190,443,00) and the delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. On the summary of the argument, the defendant raises a defense that the defendant's obligation to pay the construction price to the plaintiff was extinguished due to direct payment agreements concluded between the ordering person and the original and the defendant.

B. Relevant legal principles are governed by the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

arrow