Jeonju District Court-2012-Na4117

A claim for direct payment arises only on the basis of the degree of the objection, etc., and the debtor's obligation for the construction price ceases to exist within the scope of such obligation.

If the tax authority, prior to the occurrence of a direct payment claim, has preserved a claim for the construction cost by seizure, etc., the preserved claim shall not be extinguished notwithstanding the direct cause for payment that occurred thereafter.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Da204341 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

Do○○ Industries Co., Ltd.

Korea

Jeonju District Court-2012-Na4117

December 04, 2015

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

(b) the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning, the lower court: (a) the subcontractor pre-execution of subcontracted works;

If an agreement has been reached between the principal contractor, the subcontractor, or the subcontractor on the direct payment, the subcontractor shall

(1) A person placing an order immediately after the agreement of direct payment is reached, regardless of whether the actual execution has occurred or not.

The contractor is obligated to pay directly the full amount of the subcontract price for the project to be executed in the future.

Then, in this case, whether the plaintiff actually performed or completed the subcontracted work

The supply and demand agreement of this case was made on December 2, 2010 without considering whether the direct payment was made.

Since the plaintiff's right to demand direct payment of the subcontract price for AAB Island, the owner of the plaintiff's right, occurs, this right.

After the direct payment agreement, the principal contractor before the actual implementation or completion of subcontracted works by the plaintiff

BB Construction (hereinafter referred to as “B Construction”) by creditors of the BB Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “B Construction”)

The provisional seizure, etc. against the claim for the construction price of this case against North Do reached the AAB Island.

Even if the provisional attachment, etc. cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, and therefore, AAAD North Korea cannot be asserted.

The court below's decision that reached prior to the direct payment agreement of this case among the 160,004,200 won deposited as the construction cost of this case

Even if the amount claimed for provisional attachment by the defendant CCC is deducted from 23,500,000 won, the subcontract price of the plaintiff

More than 47,300,000 won and more than 136,504,200 won and over 160,004,200 won of the above deposit.

47,300,000 won was determined to be the plaintiff.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Article 14 (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter referred to as the "subcontract Act").

in light of the provisions of Paragraph 1 of the same Article, the ordering person shall directly receive the subcontract consideration.

Where there is an agreement between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor to pay to the business operator, the ordering person shall do so.

It is reasonable to interpret that the subcontractor’s obligation to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor is extinguished within the scope of the subcontractor’s obligation to pay the subcontract price corresponding to the part of the manufacture, repair, construction, or service performance of the subcontractor. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54108, Feb. 29, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 201Da6311, Sept. 12, 2013). This does not mean that an agreement on direct payment is identical to and with the above provision regarding the agreement on direct payment (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”) and that the obligation to pay the subcontract price is extinguished within the scope of Article 35(2) and (3) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da63140, Sept. 12, 2013).

According to the records, the direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff and AA Northdo, BB Construction, and the direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff was made on December 2, 2010, and thereafter the Plaintiff started the roof construction work of this case, which is the subcontractor, on December 15, 2010.

The fact that the above construction has been completed on December 31, 2010, and provisional attachment of claims by joint defendants CCC in the original instance is an objection.

On October 14, 2010, before the direct payment agreement of this case, AAB had already arrived at AAB Island, and the provisional seizure of claims by Co-Defendant DD of the original judgment and Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, etc. upon the direct payment agreement of this case, the completion of the roof construction of this case after

B. As between December 6, 2010 and December 22, 2010, the fact that he/she reached the AAB Do, the CCC, as the above CCC,

DD and Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation's claims for provisional seizure, etc. against claims amounting to KRW 268,461,670 in total

It can be known that the deposited construction cost exceeds KRW 160,004,200.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and AA Northdo, BB Construction, and Plaintiff

Even if there was a direct payment agreement, the Plaintiff’s right to demand direct payment arises solely from that agreement.

not the Plaintiff’s actual implementation or completion of the roof construction of this case under the subcontract.

The Plaintiff’s direct payment claim is filed only on the basis of whether the Plaintiff was paid or the degree of its origin;

In addition, the obligation to pay the instant construction cost for AAB Construction in respect of BB construction in AA Northern Island is within the scope of that obligation.

BB Construction such as CCC prior to the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s direct payment claim

If the third creditor has preserved the execution of the claim for the construction price of this case as provisional attachment, etc., it;

Notwithstanding the direct ground for payment that occurred after the enforcement, the claims preserved shall not be extinguished.

I would like to raise.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined whether the Plaintiff actually implemented or completed the construction before the provisional attachment, etc. of the third-party creditors of BB Construction following the instant direct payment agreement reaches AAB Island, or the period therefor.

1. The Plaintiff’s direct payment agreement of this case without making any determination on the degree, etc. of sexual intercourse

AAB construction work payment for AAB construction in addition to the occurrence of a right to demand direct payment to the High Court.

The debt has been extinguished within the scope of the debt, and the above decision was made;

In so determining, the lower court’s Article 14 of the Subcontract Act and Article 35 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry

misunderstanding of interest, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

section 3.