The plaintiffs have the right to claim the payment of deposit money for part of the deposit money.

Where an ordering person has agreed between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, the ordering person shall be liable to pay the subcontract price equivalent to the portion of manufacture, repair, construction, or service performed by the subcontractor directly to the relevant subcontractor, and the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the principal contractor shall be extinguished

Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act

2014 Ghana 28698 Confirmation of the claimant for payment of deposit money

AAAA et al.

Republic of Korea outside 16

July 5, 2016

August 23, 2016

1. Of the ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○, deposited by the Changwon District Court No. 755 on February 24, 2014, the right to claim a payment of the deposit amount against the Plaintiff Company AAAA, and the ○○, ○○, and ○○○○○.

The right to claim the payment of deposit money is confirmed respectively to the Plaintiff Company BB.

2. The plaintiffCC Co., Ltd.'s claim and the plaintiff AAAA's remainder are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff AAA and the Defendants are assessed against the said Plaintiff. The remainder is assessed against the Defendants. The part arising between the Plaintiff BB and the Defendants is assessed against the Defendants, and the part arising between the PlaintiffCC and the Defendants are assessed against the said Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

o Plaintiff BB: as set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article.

o Plaintiff AAA,CC, Inc.: The right to claim payment of deposit money from the Changwon District Court on February 24, 2014, deposited by ○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, which was deposited by ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, which was deposited by 755 in gold No. 201

The AAAA (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff AA") confirms that Plaintiff AA (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff AA"), ○○○ and ○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "PlaintiffCC"), respectively, has the right to claim a deposit withdrawal of the PlaintiffCC (hereinafter referred to as "PlaintiffCC").

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the statements in Gap 1 through 6, and the fact inquiry results in the ○○ market in this court.

A. Conclusion of a subcontract between the plaintiffs and defendant Diplomatic Co., Ltd.

1) On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff AA was awarded a subcontract for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the additional construction work for the laping, among the construction work ordered by Defendant DDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant DD”); and finally, on September 16, 2013, Plaintiff AA entered into a contract with Defendant DD to receive the payment of the construction work, and completed the construction work, but only ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the remainder ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was not paid the construction work.

2) Around July 2013, Plaintiff BB (former Trade Name: ○○○○○, Inc.; hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff BB”) entered into a contract with Defendant DDD on and around August 22, 2013, which entered into a contract with Defendant DD on the cost of waterproof Construction among the flood control work of the instant flood control work, and completed the construction work on and around August 22, 2013, which was finally awarded a subcontract with Defendant DD to ○○,○○○, and○○○, but only received ○○, and was not paid the remainder KRW ○○, and KRW ○○○.

3) On May 1, 2013, PlaintiffCC entered into a contract with Defendant DD on May 15, 2013 that received a subcontract for machinery and equipment among the instant flood damage restoration work from Defendant DDD for the price for the instant flood damage restoration work, and completed the construction work with Defendant DDD on May 15, 2013, but only received only KRW ○○,○○, and○○○○, out of the construction cost. However, PlaintiffCC did not receive the remainder of KRW ○○, and○○, from the construction cost.

B. Direct payment agreement on September 16, 2013 between the Plaintiffs, Defendant DDR, and ○○ City

On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiffs, Defendant DDD, and ○○ City agreed to pay directly the subcontract price corresponding to the part executed by the Plaintiffs, a subcontractor, to the Plaintiffs at the market price of ○○○, which is the ordering person. In the method and procedure of the payment, Defendant DD, the contractor, applied for the classification of the details executed by the Plaintiffs, the subcontractor, and the payment of the subcontract price is separately claimed, and ○○ City, the ordering person, directly pays the subcontract price to the Plaintiffs’ account, the subcontractor.

(c) Deposit of the balance of construction at ○○ City;

1) From among the total sum of ○○○○○○○, ○○○, and a contract bond, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, among the ○○○○○○, including the construction remainder amount, ○○○○, and ○○○○, the remainder of ○○○○ and ○○○○○, which deducts the total sum of ○○○○○○, including the overdue wage ○○○, ○○, and the defect deposit, and ○○○.

2) However, the contractor’s outstanding amount of the construction price reaches ○○○, ○○○○○○○○○ (Plaintiff AAAAA ○○○○○, Plaintiff BB ○○○, ○○○○○○, and PlaintiffCC ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○) on September 11, 2013, and Defendant EE received a provisional attachment order on the claim against Defendant DD’s ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, among the above construction price claims against Defendant DD’s ○○○○, among the construction price claims against Defendant DD’s ○○○ on September 11, 2013.

The decision was served on September 17, 2013 at ○○○○, and Defendant FFFFFFFFFF corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant FFFFFF”) also received the provisional seizure order on September 26, 2013 as to Defendant DD’s above credit against Defendant DD’s ○○ and ○○○○○○○, among the above credit claims against Defendant DD’s ○○○○○, among the above credit claims against Defendant DD’s ○○○○○.

On September 30, 2013, the decision was delivered to ○○○○○ on September 30, 2013, and the other Defendants except Defendant DDDD, EE, and FFFF were also executed upon Defendant DDD’s request for provisional attachment, seizure, and collection order regarding the above claims against Defendant DDD’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is to be paid to Defendant DDD on February 24, 2014, as the sum of the outstanding amount of the plaintiffs’ construction cost and the provisional attachment or seizure amount of the remaining Defendants except Defendant DDD exceeds the amount of the claims against Defendant DDD’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is to be paid to Defendant DD on February 24, 2014.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

According to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter referred to as the "subcontract"), when an agreement is reached between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, the principal contractor's obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor and the principal contractor's obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor shall be deemed extinguished within the scope (Article 14 (1) 2 and (2)).

Therefore, by concluding a direct payment agreement on September 16, 2013 on the part of the Plaintiffs, who are the ordering person, Defendant DDD, the principal contractor, and the subcontractor, the Plaintiffs, instead of having a direct right to claim the amount receivable for the construction price against Defendant DDD to ○○ City, the Plaintiffs extinguished the claims for the construction price against Defendant DDDD’s ○○ City. Accordingly, even if the construction price claims against Defendant DDD’s ○○ City were seized or provisionally attached, this would have no effect on the execution of the non-existent claims.

Therefore, the right to claim a payment of the amount equivalent to the outstanding amount of the plaintiffs among the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ source of the instant deposit is against the plaintiffs (i.e., the right to claim a payment of the instant deposit in the Plaintiff AAA, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○ source of the instant deposit is in the PlaintiffCC).

B. Determination

The purport of Article 14 (2) of the Subcontract Act is that in light of the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, if the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor agree to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, the ordering person is not obligated to pay the subcontractor the full amount of the subcontract price directly, but the subcontractor is obligated to pay directly the subcontractor the subcontract price corresponding to the portion manufactured, repaired, constructed, or provided by the subcontractor, and the obligation to pay directly to the subcontractor is extinguished within the scope of such obligation.

It is reasonable to say that it is reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54108, Feb. 29, 2008).

As a result of the fact-finding on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff BB's claim is justified, and the plaintiff AA's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiffCC's claim and the remainder of the plaintiff AA's claim are dismissed for each reason.