beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,918,654 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from April 10, 2015 to September 30, 2015 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by the Defendant for a new construction B (hereinafter “instant primary construction”) that the Defendant contracted by Taeduk Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moduk Construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 605,00,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction period from September 2, 2013 to November 30, 2013.
B. After that, the instant subcontract was changed to KRW 536,725,208. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the claim of KRW 48,180,000 out of the construction price of the instant first construction contract to Daewoo St Co., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the said claim. The Plaintiff received KRW 414,064,000 from the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant for construction work in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Location D (hereinafter “instant secondary construction work”) from the Defendant during the period from August 6, 2014 to March 31, 2015; and (b) completed around October 31, 2014; and (c) received KRW 90,798,947 out of the said construction work price.
The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 138,60,000 for construction cost of KRW 138,60,000, and completed by October 2014. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 128,890,600 out of the said construction cost.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s defense to the effect that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant was seized due to the Plaintiff’s delinquency in payment of national taxes around November 2014, the Plaintiff’s defense to the effect that it is unlawful as the Plaintiff’
Any creditor who files an application for an order of seizure with respect to claims shall clarify the kind and amount of the claims to be seized in the application and Article 225 and 225 of the Civil Execution Act.