beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,700,000 as well as annual 5% from March 12, 2013 to October 18, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order with the District Court 2013 tea153, and the said court on January 18, 2013, the said court rendered a payment order against the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff paid KRW 36.7 million to the Defendant and its delay damages,” and the said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized around that time.
B. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant, based on the instant payment order, issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) against the obligor, the Republic of Korea as the third obligor, and against the claim amounting to KRW 36.7 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2013No. 284). Accordingly, the Defendant collected KRW 36.7 million on March 12, 2013, and reported the collection to the said court.
C. Around September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the 159,500,000 won (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the instant construction works in Chuncheon D Building (hereinafter “instant construction”) from C. Around that time, the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction to E in KRW 151,525,000.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract.” On the other hand, the instant subcontract agreement between the Plaintiff and E appears to have been made retroactively on January 24, 2013, but the Plaintiff paid the entire construction cost of the instant subcontract to E.
On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff received a public notice from the original Regional Land Management Office of the Republic of Korea, “request for the submission of data following the report of unfair subcontracting and the deliberation of the original contractor’s opinion” due to the Defendant’s illegal subcontracting. Ultimately, the Plaintiff appears to be subject to administrative reduction or criminal punishment due to the instant subcontract.
E. E is present at this court as a witness, and himself was not the field director of the Plaintiff Company, but the Defendant was well aware of this circumstance, and eventually, the obligation to pay the price for the goods following the instant construction is not the Plaintiff.