beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 107,660,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from October 8, 2014 to August 17, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with Defendant B, the contractor, the Plaintiff, and the contract amount of KRW 200,000,000 (including value-added tax, KRW 220,00,000,00) with respect to the type mold, reinforced concrete, and wooden construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction of new F on the ground E on the ground of Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (former Mutual Co., Ltd., Ltd., D Co., Ltd., and hereinafter “Defendant B”).
B. On June 18, 2014, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) jointly and severally guaranteed the instant construction cost obligation of Defendant B.
C. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the defense prior to the merits, Defendant A was G and the actual contractor for the instant construction work is the H, and the Plaintiff and Defendant A asserted that there was no standing to be a party in the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the construction cost.
In a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person entitled to demand performance has standing to sue and who is asserted as a person obligated to perform performance as the defendant. Thus, the existence of standing to sue in accordance with the plaintiff's assertion itself is obvious, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not need to be the person obligated to perform performance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da1676 delivered on August 23, 197, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994, etc.). We examine the following: (a) insofar as the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are liable to pay the construction cost of this case, the Plaintiff is actually liable for the performance of the construction cost of this case; and (b) the Defendants are eligible for the performance of the construction cost of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion without need to examine whether the Defendants are the person liable for the performance of the construction cost of this case; and (c) thus, Defendant A’s assertion on