beta
Text
1. The deposit money deposited by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at Gyeongnam-do, on June 14, 2018, with gold No. 593 of this Court in 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) is a subcontractor awarded a contract for “P Extension Works” (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction work”) ordered by Gyeongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Office of Education”).
The contract price for Defendant C Steel Corporation’s work on December 26, 2017, which was the date of the agreement on the direct payment of the contract, is KRW 51,460,000, totaling KRW 511,460,000, KRW 95,000 on December 28, 2017, Defendant D C Steel Corporation’s Changho Metal Corporation’s KRW 95,00,000 on January 8, 2018.
B. On February 1, 2018, Defendant B awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for a “drawing production installation work” in the instant construction work to KRW 238,70,000 of the construction cost (including value-added tax). Defendant B agreed to make a direct payment 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 Fair Transactions Act, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).
According to this, the ordering person directly pays the construction cost to the subcontractor, and the obligation to pay the price to the contractor to the contractor is extinguished within the scope of the subcontract law. This is also applicable to the case where the provisions, such as the Subcontract Act, are not applied.
Defendant D, C, and F received a contract for part of the instant construction from Defendant B, and entered into a direct payment agreement with Defendant B with the same content as the Gyeongnam-do and Defendant B. The specific date, amount, etc. are as listed below.
C. On March 23, 2018, Defendant G received the instant decision on provisional seizure of the claim for construction price against Defendant B’s payment claim against Gyeongnam-do (Seoul District Court 2018Kadan100576), which became final and conclusive after it was served on the Gyeong-do, the garnishee, the third debtor, on March 28, 2018.
In addition, Defendant H, J, K, L, M, N, andO also seized or provisionally seized the claim for the construction cost of this case.