The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On February 2, 2006, an association establishment promotion committee for housing redevelopment rearrangement project in 1 region, the Defendant’s telegraphic body (hereinafter “Defendant promotion committee”) concluded a design contract with the Plaintiff and two enterprises.

On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) designed the traffic environment assessment and planning drawings requested by the said promotion committee; (b) submitted them to the Defendant Union on March 2, 2010; and (c) KRW 60 out of KRW 298,40,000, such as design expenses, 119,360,000, which is the remainder of 40%, was received by the Plaintiff respectively.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

Since a joint supply and demand organization in the way of the judgment on the defense prior to the draft of the case basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, a claim against a contractor due to the execution of construction works by a joint supply and demand organization shall, in principle, be reverted to the members of a joint supply and demand organization. Therefore, a member of the joint supply and demand organization may not claim payment according to the ratio of contribution to the subcontractor at will, unless there are special circumstances, from among the members, against the contractor, and a claim against one of the members shall not be subject

However, the claim against the contractor in relation to the contract for construction work can be divided into shares of each member of the joint contractor in accordance with the contents of the contract, such as where the joint contractor and the subcontractor agree to acquire the right to the subcontractor directly in accordance with their shares in relation to the claim arising from the contract for construction work, and the above agreement may be made explicitly and implicitly as well as explicitly.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da105406 Decided May 17, 2012). In this case, the dispute arises.