beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 27, 2013, after receiving a contract from the Defendant for the construction of a two-way general industrial complex (hereinafter referred to as “balchis construction”) with the Defendant for the first contract price of KRW 13,79,694,000, the said construction was awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff on September 27, 2013, with the amount of KRW 58,975,114, labor cost, including value-added tax, and KRW 17,781,246, and the Plaintiff completed the said subcontracted construction work on September 30, 2013.
B. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an electronic sales bond (B2B) in the electronic form of KRW 51,376,640, which deducts the employment insurance premium of KRW 323,360,00 from KRW 51,70,000 with respect to the said subcontracted construction and received a loan of KRW 15,709,037 on November 1, 2011 of the same year by providing each of the above claims to a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”).
C. On the other hand, on October 31, 2013, the Defendant drafted a direct payment agreement (direct payment) on the subcontract price (Evidence 2) containing the following contents between the Plaintiff and the two construction companies:
The subcontract consideration in the above subcontract shall be paid directly to the subcontractor pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same
The obligation to pay the price to the contractor by the ordering person and the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor by the contractor shall be deemed to be extinguished within the scope of Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.
In July 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 7,275,114 for the subcontract price from the Tranchi Construction. On the other hand, in the rehabilitation procedure of the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Mahap291, the new bank reported each of the above sales claims as rehabilitation claims and received KRW 10,189,387 according to the rehabilitation plan, and paid KRW 136,576,364 for the converted investment shares.