beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C”, is a person who engages in the business of combining and assembling vessel blocks assembled during the vessel processing, and is a supplier under Article 2(3) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and the Defendant is a principal contractor under Article 2(2) of the aforementioned Act, who mainly aims at shipbuilding, remodeling, repairing, etc.
B. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a basic contract for construction works and unit price contracts with the terms of entrusting the Plaintiff with the manufacture of the block tower, etc. of the vessels under construction. The unit price contracts include “unit price and contract amount” as “a unit price schedule corresponding to each unit price schedule” with regard to “unit price and contract amount,” and each unit price schedule states “the weight” with regard to “contract weight and settlement” on the basis of the length length of the string of the string of the strings (LUG, various skins, etc.) and correspond to the unit price schedule agreed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.” Unlike the previous one, the unit price agreement prepared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 1, 2011 states “contract and weight settlement” with regard to “contract and weight settlement” on the basis of the block set, and according to the unit price schedule agreed by the Plaintiff
C. The Plaintiff performed the shipbuilding work of vessel block from April 2010 to October 2012 in accordance with the aforementioned basic contract and unit price contract.
In relation to the above subcontract transactions, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to revise and add the design, etc., and the price for such revision and additional work was determined by the method of “work completion x rental rate.” The Defendant, based on the work details, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff in relation to the revision and additional work each month, determined the number of the time of work, and paid the price calculated by multiplying the unit price table and unit price agreement by the discretionary rate, by the settlement and agreement with the Plaintiff.
E. On June 27, 2013, the Fair Trade Commission held that the Defendant “B” was the Plaintiff.