beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants entered into a construction contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on June 19, 2018 in order to construct neighborhood living facilities and officetels on a scale of 1,997 square meters owned by the Defendants, namely, KRW 2,915,00,000 (including value-added tax).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) b.
E commenced construction by installing fences around the end of June 2018, but it was impossible to perform construction due to the corporate circumstances, and the construction was waived on September 28, 2018, and the contract was agreed with the Defendants.
C. On September 28, 2018, the Defendants concluded a contract for construction works with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and with construction cost of KRW 2,915,00,000 (including value-added tax), September 28, 2018, and the scheduled date for completion of construction works, which shall be KRW 437,250,000, as the completion of construction works.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of Nos. 1 to 3 (including the provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. (1) On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction of reinforced concrete among the instant construction works was subcontracted by E, and the Plaintiff agreed to be paid KRW 60,000,000 for the removal of the existing building, basic soil works, waste disposal, and pents construction as a special agreement. However, E, as the principal contractor, terminated the construction contract with the Defendants without any distinction from the Plaintiff as the subcontractor, and has no ability to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is obliged to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff.
(2) However, it is difficult to deem that the right to claim a direct payment of the subcontract price under the Subcontract Act has been established solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's assertion needs to be examined further.