logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.05 2018나205132
용역비
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined the total construction cost of Dwork as KRW 15,500,000 with C University (hereinafter “instant construction”); and (b) received a contract with C University at KRW 15,50,000.

B. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) at KRW 1,227,270,000 for the construction cost.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). (c)

From February 2, 2017 to April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s vehicle for accusation to E in total at KRW 20,350,00 (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “Lease of the instant vehicle”). D.

On May 11, 2017, E drafted a written consent from the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Defendant agrees to pay 20,360,000 won for unpaid equipment to the Plaintiff directly.”

E. On May 8, 2017, E filed an application for rehabilitation on May 8, 2017, and the rehabilitation procedure commenced on May 29, 2017, but the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on August 22, 2017.

(Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017 Gohap100084). E was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court on September 7, 2017

(Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hahap75). (f) The Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order requesting the Defendant to pay the equipment costs, and the Defendant did not separately request the Defendant to pay the equipment costs before receiving the original copy of the instant payment order on June 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 18, 20, and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) Since the Defendant’s subcontractor E, who is the Defendant’s subcontractor, is unable to pay the equipment cost for the lease of this case due to bankruptcy, the Defendant is entitled to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

Pursuant to Article 14(1)1 of this Act or Articles 32(4) and 35(2)4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Plaintiff shall be obligated to pay 20,360,000 won for unpaid equipment and delay damages.

arrow