logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.06.20 2017가단11417
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,748,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2017 to June 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the said extended construction work (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) at KRW 502,330,000 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

B. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 250 million to D as advance payment of the instant expansion work, and thereafter, from April 22, 2016, the same year.

7. Until 13.13, 121,286,440 won was paid for the construction cost.

C. Around July 2016, the Defendant: (a) concluded a direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff and D on the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) under Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 93,806,460 to the Plaintiff from August 17, 2016 to November 4, 2016.

D The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed that the completion amount of the instant expansion would be KRW 565,232,000 as of December 2016. On February 9, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 100,139,100 out of the completion amount of the instant extension.

E. Meanwhile, on July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a claim attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”) with respect to the amount up to KRW 500 million out of the claim for construction payment payable by D in relation to the instant extension work from the Defendant. The instant attachment and assignment order was served on August 2, 2016 on the Defendant.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, 8, 10, Eul’s evidence 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: the Defendant: (a) was based on the instant direct payment agreement and the unpaid amount; and (b) KRW 100,96,440.

arrow