In a case where the Public Procurement Service concluded a contract for the purchase of procurement commodities with Gap company upon the local government's request for purchase and provided the payment method as the "payment by proxy", the case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the public procurement agency is the party to the above procurement contract and the creditor of Gap company cannot claim the full payment by making the local government as the third party debtor.

In a case where the Public Procurement Service entered into a contract for the purchase of the procurement commodities with Gap company upon a local government's request for the purchase, and provided the payment method as the "payment method", the case affirming the judgment of the court below that since the above procurement contract is a "contract for a third party" which is merely a beneficiary of the contract, a person who is the party to the procurement contract and bears the obligation to pay the contract amount as the party to the procurement contract is merely the public procurement agency, and as long as the contract for the procurement is a "payment method" in the contract for the procurement, the creditor of the company Gap who is the government as the third party cannot claim for the whole payment against the above

Article 9 of the Government Procurement Act; Article 12(1) (see current Article 5-2(2) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Government Procurement Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 539 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14887 decided May 2, 200

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2009Na1810 decided June 24, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the evidence adopted, the lower court: on March 5, 2007, requested the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service to purchase government-funded materials for the automatic control system improvement; on April 9, 2007, the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Party Company”) to notify the Defendant of the amount of KRW 80,000,000, KRW 70,000,000, KRW 70,000,000, KRW 86,000,00,000, KRW 70,000,000,000, KRW 70,000,000,000,000, KRW 86,000,000,000,000, KRW 70,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,07.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that, inasmuch as the instant procurement contract is a contract for a third party, which is merely a beneficiary of the contract, and the Defendant, a procuring entity, is the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service and the Nonparty, and thus, is a party to the instant procurement contract, who is obligated to pay the price to the Nonparty Company, is only Seoul Regional Government Government Procurement Service, and as the instant procurement contract stipulates the payment method of the contract by subrogation, the Defendant as the third party obligor cannot claim the entire amount against the Defendant.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)