beta
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 July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with Suwon District Court for a payment order against APS Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “APD Construction”). On or around July 29, 2013, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 4,360,950 per annum to the Plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment. The said payment order was served to EP General Construction around July 31, 2013, and became final and conclusive around August 15, 2013.
B. Since September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against the EP comprehensive construction from Suwon District Court Decision 2013TT21585, regarding KRW 4,500,879, out of the construction cost claims against the Defendant of EP comprehensive construction, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order. The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant around September 26, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's argument on the plaintiff's assertion that because AP General Construction was executed after entering into a contract for construction works with the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay AP General Construction Price. The plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on KRW 4,500,879, out of the above construction price claims against the defendant of APP General Construction based on the executory exemplification of a payment order for APP General Construction, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above construction price claims to the plaintiff who is the person entitled to collect the above construction price claims. However, EP General Construction entered into a contract for construction works with the defendant and executed the construction works following the conclusion of the contract with the defendant.
It is recognized that E.S. integrated construction has a claim for the construction cost against the defendant.