beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added a judgment on the additional argument in the court of first instance pursuant to paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s additional argument
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) supplied goods under a goods supply contract with the Nonparty Company; (b) KRW 34,569,755 on July 3, 2017; and (c) KRW 27,006,540 on October 18, 18 of the same month; (b) KRW 27,014,020 on October 24, 201; and (c) KRW 5,885,880 on May 24, 200; and (d) acquired a claim equivalent to the amount of KRW 26,814,865 on September 14, 2017; and (c) Nonparty Company paid the remainder to the Defendant KRW 15 million on September 14, 2017.
Accordingly, the Defendant requested D to pay the subcontract price directly pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”) and notified the transfer of the instant claim and its notification in order to clarify this. Thus, the instant claim cannot be deemed as the subject property of Nonparty Company’s liability.
B. Determination 1) According to Article 14(1) of the Subcontract Act, where a subcontractor falls under Article 14(1)2 of the same Act (where the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor agree to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor), a claim for direct payment arises within the scope prescribed by Article 14(1) and (4) of the same Act and Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act even if the subcontractor does not request a direct payment. However, in cases falling under the remainder 1, 3, and 4, the above claim for direct payment arises only when the subcontractor requests a direct payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da24176, May 10, 2012). In such cases, whether the subcontractor requested a direct payment of the subcontract price under Article 14(1) of the Subcontract Act is the details and method of the subcontractor’s request