Whether the original contractor's obligation to pay the contract for service has expired;

A claim for the contract price of this case against a contractor of the original contractor, which is a collection claim, is extinguished within the scope of the subcontract price executed by the plaintiff according to the nature of the contract owner, the original contractor, and the subcontractor.

2013 Ghana 5002804 Verification of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

AAA, Inc.

Korea

July 24, 2013

August 28, 2013

1. It is confirmed that the Seoul Eastern District Court deposited No. 4243 with the Seoul Eastern District Court in 2012 that the right to claim for payment of deposit money for the OO members was the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The text is as follows (However, the "Seoul Central District Court" in paragraph 1 of the written complaint is a clerical error in the Seoul Eastern District Court).

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2012, Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentCC (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) contracted the integrated maintenance and repair of information and communications (hereinafter referred to as “instant services”) to BB (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) around February 2, 2012, by setting the contract amount as OO and the period from February 28, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

B. On February 28, 2012, BB subcontracted the instant service to the Plaintiff, setting the subcontract amount as OOOO (OOO) and the period from February 28, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

C. On April 5, 2012, pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the Plaintiff, and BB made a written agreement under the above third party’s name to pay the instant service subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff, and theCC requested its approval to the Plaintiff, and the Gu approved it on April 9, 2012, and agreed on the direct payment of the instant service subcontract price between the Plaintiff, BB, and the third party (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the approval of theCC was not made by the document with a fixed date.

D. According to the instant agreement, theCC paid the instant service subcontract price to the Plaintiff on March, 2012, and on May, 201, directly implemented to the Plaintiff.

E. BB closed on June 16, 2012.

F. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant seized the instant service contract price claim against the CCB (hereinafter “instant seizure”) in order to preserve the tax claim against BB on July 19, 2012, and the instant seizure notice reached the CC on July 23, 2012.

G. On July 25, 2012,CC terminated the instant service contract with BB, and the Plaintiff faithfully performed the instant service with the CC-gu prior to that date.

H. On October 12, 2012, the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 4243 decided the deposited person as Plaintiff and BBB, which was performed from June 1, 2012 to July 24, 2012, the day immediately before the termination date of the contract, on the ground that the instant attachment notice was received on October 12, 2012, and deposited the unpaid OOOE (the price to be paid to BB + the price to be paid to the Plaintiff).

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, two evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant agreement provides that theCC shall pay the Plaintiff the price directly to the Plaintiff within the scope of the service actually performed by the Plaintiff, and that it shall not pay the price to BB, and that the instant service contract price claim shall be extinguished within the said scope. Therefore, the Plaintiff may oppose the Defendant with respect to the instant service subcontract price accrued from June 1, 2012 to the date of arrival of the instant attachment notice. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Plaintiff had the right to claim payment of the said amount out of the amount deposited by theCC.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant agreement practically transferred the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s subcontract price claim against the Plaintiff out of the instant service contract claim against the Plaintiff, and theCC has consented to it, and it was not made with a document with the consent date issued by theCC. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant, the execution creditor against the BB, with the subcontract price claim for the period claimed by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

If the contractor, and the subcontractor, enter into a contract for construction work and a subcontract, agree that the subcontractor shall pay the subcontractor directly in the presence of the subcontractor, and that the subcontractor shall not pay the subcontractor the price, regardless of whether the construction work under the above contract and subcontract has been actually executed or completed, and if the subcontractor directly requests the subcontractor to pay the price of the construction work to the subcontractor and the original contractor shall not request the payment of the construction work, it is reasonable to view that the original contractor actually transfers the subcontractor's obligation to the subcontractor to the subcontractor and that the subcontractor who is the subcontractor agrees to the payment. In such cases, unless the subcontractor's obligation to pay the above assignment of obligation is done by a document with the fixed date of the subcontractor's consent, the subcontractor may not oppose the execution obligee on the above obligation of the subcontractor. On the other hand, the subcontractor's obligation to pay the construction work directly to the original contractor within the extent that the subcontractor does not directly pay the construction work price to the original contractor, and if the subcontractor does not pay the construction work price to the subcontractor, the subcontractor's obligation to directly pay the subcontractor within the scope of the subcontractor's obligation to pay the payment.

B. The nature of the instant agreement

BB subcontracted to the Plaintiff all of the instant services contracted by theCC, and the instant agreement was made pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and the Plaintiff was directly paid the subcontract price for the services performed by theCC in March, 2012, and in April, and in May, as acknowledged earlier, and in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments between the Plaintiff and the BB, and the overall purport of the statement and arguments between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and between the Plaintiff and the BB, the agreement that the Plaintiff would directly receive the subcontract price from theCC (Article 3 of the contract) and the obligation that the Plaintiff would directly receive the subcontract price from theCC (Article 3 of the contract), and theCC may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff would have paid the subcontract price after checking whether the instant service was completed each month.

According to the above facts, the intent of the plaintiff, BB, andCC as the party to the instant agreement, and the subcontractor, to the extent that the plaintiff, the subcontractor, has completed the implementation pursuant to the instant subcontract agreement, is reasonable to deem that theCC, the subcontractor, should pay the service directly to the plaintiff, the subcontractor, and not pay the service payment to the BB, the original contractor. Therefore, when the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the subcontractor, shall be extinguished the claim for the service contract payment to the BB, within the scope of the corresponding subcontract price.

C. Plaintiff’s subcontract claim and benefit of confirmation that can be asserted against the Defendant

As seen earlier, the instant notification of attachment was reached in the Gu, a garnishee, July 23, 2012, andCC had been served with the Plaintiff during the period from June 1, 2012 to July 24, 2012, and it was served with the notice of attachment, and deposited the amount to be paid to BB as the service cost during the said period without paying OOB total of the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff. According to the nature of the instant agreement, from June 1, 2012 to July 22, 2012, the date of the instant notification of attachment, the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s subcontract consideration claim regarding BB’s subcontract consideration claim regarding the period from June 1, 2012 to July 22, 2012, which falls under the Plaintiff’s subcontract consideration for the period from June 20, 2012 to July 21, 200 to 21,202O20 to 27O21.21.27

Meanwhile, taking into account the following factors: (a) the type of deposit is the deposit for repayment; (b) the Plaintiff and the person under such deposit was designated as the Plaintiff and the person under such designation; and (c) the facts leading up to the deposit and the circumstances leading up to the deposit recognized as above; and (b) the deposit constitutes a mixed deposit having the nature of not only the deposit for repayment but also the characteristics of the execution deposit; and (c) the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendant, the execution creditor of BB, who is the execution creditor of the said deposit, that the Plaintiff has the right to claim for payment of the subcontract consideration amount from June 1, 2012 to July 22, 2012 (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076 Decided January 12, 2012).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.