beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff corresponding to the next order of payment is revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment in this Court was determined by the first instance court as follows: (a) the Plaintiff claimed the cost of materials on the river and on the tent site; and (b) only the cost of materials on the tent site was accepted and dismissed.
In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed, and the plaintiff added a claim based on the obligee's subrogation right in the first instance. Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the cost of materials in three sites and preliminary claims.
2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable by the main text
3. Assertion and determination
A. On December 24, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s primary claim (request based on a direct payment agreement) made an agreement with the Plaintiff to dispose of the price of the materials in direct payment of the materials. Moreover, the Plaintiff supplied the materials to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request and issued electronic tax invoices, and the Defendant did not raise any objection thereto, and the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s materials to the instant construction without any direct payment of the materials. E and D, who are employees in charge of the Defendant’s field, promised to pay the Plaintiff the price of the materials directly to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the material price directly to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s direct payment of the unpaid materials in the instant construction site was 49,787,036 won (i.e., January 22, 219, 872 won, KRW 11,383,60 won, KRW 16,500, KRW 183,60, KRW 1840).
However, all other than that, the Plaintiff did not deliver to the Defendant the material that the Plaintiff supplied to EXE.
The defendant on January 16, 2014.