2014Gaz. 1634 Collection

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Maduk, Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. B

2. C Stock Company

D Representative Director D

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

May 14, 2015

June 11, 2015

1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 106, 666, and 00 won, each of which is calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from September 19, 2014 to the day of full payment, and Defendant C Co., Ltd shall pay to the Plaintiff 20% per annum from March 18, 2014 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Facts of recognition

(1) On September 2012, E and F decided to build multi-household housing and neighborhood living facilities on the seven lots, such as the Dong-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, and requested G General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G General Construction”) to construct the relevant construction.

(2) Around October 8, 2013, Defendant B received from Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) part of KRW 1946,00,00, out of the above construction cost obligations for G General Construction in E, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), out of the above construction cost obligations for F’s G General Construction, KRW 71,00,000, out of the above construction cost obligations for F’s G General Construction (hereinafter referred to as “each construction cost obligations”).

(3) In order to preserve the contractual deposit claim for G Construction (No. 736, 2012, a cash loan agreement signed by a notary public at the pay-up of the notary public on December 11, 2012), the Plaintiff filed an application for seizure and collection order with the Defendants as to each of the instant construction payment claims, with the Defendant as to KRW 106,66,00, out of each of the instant construction payment claims, and the Ulsan District Court issued a request for seizure and collection order as to January 27, 2014 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

(4) On January 29, 2014, each of the instant orders for the seizure and collection was served on the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, Eul 3-1 and 2, each entry, pleading

The purport of the whole

B. Determination

According to the facts found above, the defendants are obligated to pay each of the claims for the construction price of this case to the plaintiff holding the right to collect in accordance with the seizure and collection order of this case. Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay each of the claims to the plaintiff with the right to collect in accordance with the above seizure and collection order of this case. Accordingly, the defendants are obligated to pay each of the claims to the plaintiff 106, 666, and 00 won on the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case from September 19, 2014, and the defendant C is obligated to pay each of the claims for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from March 18, 2014 to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A. Summary of the argument

The Defendants agreed to pay the remainder of the construction cost in G General Construction when acquiring each of the instant construction cost obligations from E and F. However, as a result of the settlement of accounts, the Defendants agreed to pay the Defendants’ direct payment of the construction cost to H General Construction. However, the Defendants’ direct payment of the construction cost to G General Construction would amount to KRW 2,04,566,566,00,000, which is the total amount of the respective construction cost obligations to be paid to the subcontractor, and KRW 1,717,00,000 ( = 946,000,000 + KRW 771,000,000,000, and KRW 327,566,000,000, which is the difference from G General Construction, and the Defendants were not paid to G General Construction Bonds at least KRW 1,70,000,000, KRW 270,000,000.

B. Determination

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants paid KRW 2,044, 566, 00 to the subcontractors the unpaid construction cost to the extent of KRW 2,00,00 solely on the basis of each statement of evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4-3, and that G General Construction agreed to pay KRW 247,200,000 upon recognizing the Defendants’ aforementioned settlement results, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In addition, unless there is evidence to prove that the Defendants paid each of the instant construction costs to G General Construction before January 29, 2014, the delivery date of the seizure and prosecution order of this case, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Tae-sik, the presiding judge

Judges and higher-ranking

Judges Min Il-young