beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 474,100,000 as well as 6% per annum from September 12, 2014 to July 9, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant agreed to settle the progress payment once a month when entering into a contract for construction works that the non-party company is to receive from the non-party company for the construction works that the non-party company is to receive from the non-party company during the construction period of 6.5 billion won (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period of 6.5 billion won (including value-added tax) and December 30 of the same year with the non-party company for the construction works that the non-party company is to receive from the non-party company during the instant construction works (hereinafter referred to as the “subcontract”). On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the non-party company for the construction cost of 6.3 billion won (including value-added tax) of the construction cost of the electric, telecommunications, and CCTV construction works among the instant construction works (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontracted works”).
B. As of December 31, 2013, the base height of the instant construction and subcontracted construction is 95%, respectively.
C. The non-party company is insolvent as of the closing date of the instant argument.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, the fact-finding results on Pyeongtaek-si of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion is that the Defendant is a contractor of the instant subcontracted project, and is obligated to directly pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff, who is the contractor of the instant subcontracted project, pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).
Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the subcontract price against the non-party company, and the non-party company has a claim for the construction price to the Defendant. Therefore, in order to preserve the above subcontract price claim, the Plaintiff exercised the right to subrogation for the construction price
B. According to Article 14(1)3 of the former Subcontract Act (amended by Act No. 11842, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same), where a principal contractor fails to pay a subcontract price to the subcontractor at least twice.