beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
The costs of appeal between D and the Defendant are assessed against the remaining Plaintiffs and Defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the remaining plaintiffs' grounds of appeal except the plaintiff D
A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, carried out the instant construction directly with the Defendant supplied goods or provided services from the Plaintiffs in the name of the P Co., Ltd.
It was determined that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement to pay the subcontract price directly to the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs D.
Examining records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below.
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of finding facts against logical and empirical rules.
B. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that there was no assertion and proof by the Plaintiffs as to the fact that P corporation constitutes a principal contractor under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and the Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for direct claim under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s obligation to pay construction price to P corporation as of September 26, 2012, which was the date of direct claim
Examining records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the existence of the obligation to pay the subcontract consideration under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,
2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff D the wood price directly in accordance with the direct payment agreement.
Examining the record, the lower court’s judgment.