logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.10.20 2015나5422
중기임대료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the plaintiff's explanation of new arguments in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The portion newly asserted in the trial;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Nonparty Company agreed to pay the mid-term rent directly to the Plaintiff. The Nonparty Company delayed payment of the mid-term rent in this case to the Plaintiff at least twice, and did not issue a payment guarantee certificate. As such, Article 35(2)1, 3, and 5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (in any of the following cases, the ordering person shall directly pay the subcontract price corresponding to

1. Where the project owner and contractor, or the project owner, contractor, and subcontractor agree clearly to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, by specifying the purport thereof and payment methods and procedures;

3. Where the contractor delays the payment of the subcontract price referred to in Article 34 (1) on at least two occasions and the subcontractor requests a direct payment of the subcontract price to the project owner;

5. Where the contractor fails to issue a payment guarantee letter for the subcontract price under Article 34 (2) to the subcontractor without any justifiable reason, where the ordering person confirms such fact or the subcontractor requests a direct payment of the subcontract price, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the mid-term rent in this case.

2 even though the Defendant promised to give priority to the payment for the completed portion to the non-party company to the Plaintiff, the payment for the completed portion accrued after October 2014 shall be made to the non-party company.

arrow