logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.11.05 2020나46216
공탁금 출급청구권 확인
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the court of first instance shall revise the “construction cost of the instant case” under the second sentence of the judgment; (b) each of the “construction cost of the instant case” under the third sentence 11, 13, and 18, respectively; and (c) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “the construction cost of the instant case” under the fourth and fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, to “the construction cost of the instant case”

1. Since it is the same as the part of the facts recognized, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the right to claim the return of deposit held by a creditor who becomes a depositee under the relevant law is a right to substitute the original claim against the debtor, the subject and scope of the original claim shall be determined according to the legal relationship in which the original claim has been established.

Therefore, in a case where the obligor requested the confirmation that one of the deposited parties has the right to claim the return of deposit against the other deposited parties by depositing the repayment of the relative uncertainty because it is impossible for the obligor to know who is true creditor, whether the deposited parties have the right to claim the return of deposit as a genuine creditor should be determined on the basis of who can exercise the original claim in the legal relationship between the deposited parties and the obligor who is the depositee.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da270049, May 17, 2017). Where the contractor, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor agreed to the subcontractor that “the cost of construction work shall be paid directly to the subcontractor in the presence of the prime contractor, and the prime contractor shall not be paid to the prime contractor,” the parties’ intent itself transfer the subcontractor’s obligation to the subcontractor to the prime contractor regardless of whether the construction work under the said contract and the subcontract have been actually implemented or completed.

arrow