beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's main claim that is changed in exchange at the trial is dismissed.
2.(a)
exchange at the time of trial.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's ground of claim
A. Around December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction of the hotel gate (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 1,221,00,000 with respect to the construction of the hotel gate in Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed the construction work. Since the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the construction cost after only a part of the construction cost was paid, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 250,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.
[Defendant] Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in the course of the lawsuit in the first instance trial while the Plaintiff asserted the same as above.
(B) On the premise that the claim for construction price was acquired by transfer from the court, the claim for this portion was transferred in exchange for the claim for acquisition money, and thus, it is alleged to the effect that the claim cannot be maintained in violation of the principle of prohibition of re-instigation. However, the claim is withdrawn due to the foregoing change in the exchange in the process of the court of first instance, and the final judgment thereon was not made. Therefore, it does not go against the principle of prohibition of re-instigation under Article 267(2) of the
On December 15, 2008, the conjunctive Defendant ordered C to perform the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff again agreed to receive the payment of the construction cost for the instant construction work by directly performing the instant construction work in the form of accepting a subcontract for most of the instant construction work. Since the Defendant did not pay a large portion of the construction cost, C has a claim for the remaining construction cost against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff also has a claim for the construction cost for the portion that the Plaintiff performed. Since C is in insolvent, the Plaintiff is claiming for the payment of KRW 250,000,000 among the construction cost payable by subrogation of C and its delay damages.
C. Around December 15, 2008, the second preliminary defendant ordered C to undertake the instant construction work, and the plaintiff.