logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가합18975
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendants are either KRW 130,000,000 for each Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from January 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On December 2009, the relationship viewing between the Plaintiff and C was ordered by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Corporation”), and E subcontracted the said construction to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with the amount of KRW 6889 million by receiving the said construction from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

C around January 2010, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the part concerning the procurement and installation of CCTV-related materials in the instant construction cost of KRW 295 million.

E on February 1, 2010, paid KRW 200 million out of the above construction cost to C’s account.

Of the above KRW 200 million, KRW 140 million was deposited into Defendant A’s account via the account of Nonparty F G Co., Ltd. (G appears to be Defendant B’s mother).

On the same day, the Plaintiff received advance payment of KRW 88 million out of the above money from Defendant A, and received advance payment under the instant contract.

On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff and C filed a provisional attachment order of KRW 380 million (the Jeonju District Court 2010Kahap474) with respect to the claims for the payment of goods against H, a representative of E, for the Republic of Korea of KRW 380 million.

In addition, C filed a lawsuit against H on November 23, 2010 against the Busan District Court 2010Kahap22050, the conciliation was concluded on February 23, 2011 that “H shall pay KRW 230 million to C until March 15, 201,” and on March 23, 2011, the provisional attachment of KRW 230,016,080 (the amount based on the above conciliation protocol and the cost of litigation KRW 16,080) was transferred to H as the provisional attachment (the Jeonju District Court 2011TTT3212).

On the other hand, even after completion of the construction work under the sub-subcontract, C rejected the payment of the remainder by asserting that it was delayed by the Plaintiff. On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for the payment of the construction cost (201Gahap1524) with the Busan District Court. In that case, on September 27, 2011, the following (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjustment clause”).

arrow