logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.19 2017가단5009872
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract from C Co., Ltd. to supply and install furnitures in Daegu-gu D Site (director’s “instant construction site”) and subcontracted the said construction to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

On April 20, 2015, E entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of materials necessary for the production of households to be supplied at the construction site of this case.

B. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and E entered into an agreement that the Defendant shall directly pay the Plaintiff the material cost to be paid to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”). The main content of the “Agreement on Direct Payment of Materials” prepared at the time is as follows.

Of the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant to E in relation to the instant construction site, the Defendant confirms that the Plaintiff would pay directly to the Plaintiff with respect to the material cost supplied to E at the construction site of this case under the confirmation of the Defendant, E, and the Plaintiff.

E agrees in advance that the Defendant directly pays to the Plaintiff only for material price (440,000,000,000, value added tax) out of the progress payment that the Defendant shall pay to E.

(not including the time limit of payment).

On April 1, 2015, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for the supply and installation work of furniture to E, and paid the construction cost corresponding to the base price for each month. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the construction cost corresponding to E on April 1, 2015.

After the conclusion of the instant direct payment agreement, the Defendant directly paid KRW 342,450,608 from May 2015 to the Plaintiff as the material price supplied during the said period, out of the construction cost corresponding to the period of time during which E ceased construction from September 2015.

On the other hand, E was supplied with materials from other companies than the Plaintiff, and a direct payment arrangement, such as the instant direct payment agreement, was concluded on June 1, 2015 between the Defendant, E, and their suppliers.

[Judgment of the court below]

arrow