beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, and the Defendant A’s 20,000,000 won and its corresponding amount from October 5, 2016, and the Defendant B’s 65,000,000 won and its amount.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's statement Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant on March 21, 2014 to KRW 150 million (excluding value-added tax) for the construction of a new building for D ground (value-added tax) in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant Eul on March 22, 2014 for the construction of a new building for E ground (value-added tax separate) in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant C on March 22, 2014 for the construction of a new building for E ground (value-added tax separate) in the amount of KRW 150 million (value-added tax) and the Plaintiff completed the construction of each building and delivered each of the above buildings to the said Defendants on October 13, 2014.
According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 20 million, Defendant B is KRW 65 million, Defendant C is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 35 million, and damages for delay.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion 1, the Defendants asserted that, in the case of Defendant B and C, one of the above Defendants’ respective new buildings is sold, Defendant A agreed to pay the remainder when the said Defendant’s above new buildings are sold to a third party, and that the remaining payment period has not yet arrived since each of the above buildings was not sold to the third party.
In the case of a juristic act to which the subsidiary was attached, it should be viewed as a condition if it is reasonable to view that the subsidiary did not perform the obligation unless the facts indicated in the subsidiary have occurred, and if it is reasonable to view that the subsidiary should perform the obligation even if not only the facts indicated but also the facts indicated have become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the existence of the facts indicated have become final and conclusive.
Therefore, certain facts are required for the repayment of the obligation already borne.