beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Of the primary claims, 201,003,773 Won and 82,633.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: “In May of the following month” as “fiveth day of the following month”; “Ma” as “F”; “In October 7, 2014” as “in October 7, 2014”; “A” as “No. 1 or 11” as “Evidence 1 through 46” as “Evidence 11, 16 through 46” as “No. 6,” and “No. 11” as “No. 11” as “No. 1 through 11, 116 through 46.”
Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for recognition / [this Court’s fact-finding results] shall be added to “each fact-finding results to C institutions of this Court” in front of the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the court.”
“The Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed KRW 250 million, respectively, to C institutions, KRW 368,50,000 as the 10th construction cost around September 2012; KRW 352,935,00 as the 11st construction cost around October 2012; and KRW 250,000,000 as the 12th construction cost around December 2012; and all subcontractors were paid directly.”
2. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) As the custodian of the instant contract is to maintain the instant contract after the Defendant’s commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the claim against the Defendant by the C institution or subcontractor regarding the instant contract constitutes a priority claim pursuant to Articles 119(2) and (1) and 179(1)7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, even if the claim occurred prior to the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings.
Since the Plaintiff jointly and severally liable as a joint and several venture due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the instant construction project, performed its obligations to C institutions on behalf of the Plaintiff, and paid the construction price to the subcontractor with the Plaintiff’s funds, the Plaintiff may subrogate his claims against the Defendant by C institutions and subcontractors, a public-interest creditor, and thus, the Plaintiff’s construction cost share and indemnity claim against the Defendant should also be deemed as a public-interest claim.
(H) On the other hand, the plaintiff is against the defendant.