beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,257,885 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from May 1, 2014 to March 26, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are companies engaged in steel and steel product sales business, steel product cutting, grain cutting, processing, and steel structure manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a company engaged in an engineering work business, building work business, etc.
Around November 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with an outstanding Ams Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “outboard Co., Ltd”) for the Changwon Factory Construction Project (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction project”) and performed the construction project.
The Plaintiff supplied materials, such as steel, in relation to the instant construction project, and its tax invoice was issued in the future of the Defendant (the Defendant was supplied to the supplier).
Around September 30, 2014, the non-party company, the defendant, and the plaintiff drafted a direct payment agreement that the non-party company agrees to pay the price of materials supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff directly to the plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied steel materials, etc. to the Defendant from October 31, 2013 to March 31, 2014 on the condition that the payment would be made by the end of the following month. The Defendant did not pay KRW 64,257,885 out of the price. 2) The Defendant alleged that part of the instant construction was subcontracted to A. The Plaintiff was only a transaction with A, and the Plaintiff did not have any transaction with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff materials.
B. Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a written form, such as a contract or a trade agreement, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the future of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not raise any objection thereto (the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was to issue a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant only while trading with Nonparty A, but there is no material supporting this). The Defendant’s material price.