logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.05.12 2015가단34948
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 6, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract for construction work amounting to KRW 2,750,000,000 to MND General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MND case”) at the early 808-50, supra, at the port of the wife population, for construction work at the early 2,750,000,000.

The above construction cost was changed to KRW 3,080,000 on March 15, 2013.

B. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff received a collection order for attachment and collection as to KRW 160,205,990 from the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the instant payment order for the instant case, such as the payment of construction cost, etc., from the Jan-si District Court of Nam-si, the Namyang-si, the Seoul District Court of Law No. 2014,579.

The above collection order was served on June 16, 2014 on the defendant.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay the above collection amount.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the construction cost to be paid to MD case does not remain.

B. There is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had the obligation to pay the construction price of this case at the time of delivering the above collection order.

Rather, the following facts are recognized.

피고는 2013. 6. 17.까지 엠에이디종건에 공사대금으로 합계 2,310,000,000원을 지급하였고, 2013. 11. 12.부터 2014. 1. 22.까지 이 사건 공사의 하수급업자들에게 합계 약 426,000,000원을 지급하여, 공사대금 지급률은 약 89%[≒ (2,310,000,000원 426,000,000원)/3,080,000,000원]이다.

B, however, around January 2014, the construction was suspended and the construction was de facto waived with approximately 65% (70% even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion).

As above, since construction cost exceeding the construction cost corresponding to FJ has been paid up to the time of the waiver of construction work, it shall not be deemed that the construction cost payable by the defendant remains at the time of service of the above collection order.

3. Conclusion.

arrow