beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except as follows, since the part of “1. Basic Facts” is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” during the period from 4 to 8th end of the judgment of the first instance, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) shall be used as “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) at the last two parallels of the judgment of the first instance, and all of the following “Defendant C” shall be used as “C”.
The following shall be put in parallel between 9 and 8 pages 7 of the judgment of the first instance.
D. The Plaintiffs in direct payment and the Defendant’s refusal of the payment of security deposit were in arrears with the wages of field workers and unpaid materials, equipment, etc. with respect to the subcontracted project in this case. On November 15, 2016, C paid directly to C the total amount of KRW 30,296,68 out of the progress payment for December 15, 2016, with C’s direct payment consent from C on November 15, 2016 (=145,631,795 + + 90,903,379 + KRW 86,361,584 + 90,584 + 90,99,910).
(2) On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of the deposit under the instant advance payment guarantee agreement. On November 30, 2018, the Defendant paid only the said amount to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the remaining guarantee liability of the Defendant does not exceed KRW 142,94,402. [Grounds for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 17 through 35 (tentative numbers) (including serial numbers).
hereinafter the same shall apply.
Each entry and the purport of the entire pleadings in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: " March 8, 2017." " March 13, 2017."
The main arguments of the parties and the main arguments of the parties to the issue of this case are attributable to C.