logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.10.16 2018가단10393
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) have a claim against C on the labor cost (hereinafter referred to as the “work cost of this case”) from September 2017 to November 2017, 2017, with respect to the construction work of the Escopic Association located in Gui-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) (hereinafter referred to as “Escopic Association”).

On August 21, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with C on August 21, 2017, under which reinforced concrete construction works among the construction works of the Hridge located in the Gu Council (hereinafter referred to as “Hridge construction works”) was the subcontract cycle of KRW 308,00,000,000.

On November 22, 2017, I, the Director of the Site Office for Edcing Works, confirmed that the labor cost of the Plaintiff, etc. on September 2017, 2017, including the Plaintiff, etc. on Edcing Works, was KRW 41,309,770 and that the labor cost of October 201, 2017, was KRW 116,105,710, total of the above labor cost, was 116,105,710, and written a written confirmation (hereinafter referred to as “instant confirmation”).

Then, on December 15, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 44,00,000 to the Plaintiff out of the total labor cost of KRW 116,105,710.

Plaintiff

On December 28, 2017, the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Kadan2263 rendered the debtor C and the third debtor as the defendant and the third debtor at KRW 72,060,710, which was issued a provisional attachment ruling (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional attachment ruling of this case”) on the claim for the construction cost regarding the HAD Corporation against the defendant, and the provisional attachment ruling of this case was served on the defendant on January 2, 2018.

Plaintiff

On January 24, 2018, according to an executory payment order original on January 24, 2018 (former District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office of 72,060,688 won, shall be transferred from provisional seizure to provisional seizure, and the remainder of 621,849 won shall be claimed based on the original copy

arrow