beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 166,50,000 and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from March 21, 2020.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 together with the whole purport of the pleadings:
Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that ordered the 11 new construction work of electric power resource D-owned housing unit (hereinafter “new construction work of this case”). Defendant C is a person awarded a contract with the Defendant Company for the new construction work of this case.
B. The Plaintiff, on February 18, 2019, uses the term used in the contract, taking into account that it is a term used in the contract, although it is a non-standard language of the board panel panel among the new construction works in this case from Defendant C.
The construction project (including the subcontract, hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontracted project”) started to be subcontracted for the period from February 10, 2019 to March 30, 2019 and completed the subcontracted project.
C. On July 12, 2019, the Defendants prepared and delivered a written consent for direct payment of the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant written consent for direct payment”) with the purport that the Defendant Company consents to the direct payment of KRW 166,500,000, out of the subcontract price of the instant subcontracted project by September 30, 2019.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the construction cost of KRW 166,500,000 to the Plaintiff in accordance with the statement of direct payment in this case, and as the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant B Co., Ltd. from March 21, 2020 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the payment for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from January 13, 2020 to the day of full payment.
As to this, Defendant C asserts that there is no construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff by transferring all the claims related to the instant subcontract to the Defendant Company.
However, it is solely based on the fact that the Defendants drafted a written consent to the instant direct payment.