logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.04.19 2017가단108071
선급금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on the construction period until December 30, 2014, with respect to the construction work period of KRW 1,08,800,000.

B. On January 15, 2013, Nonparty Company paid KRW 108,800,000 to the Plaintiff as advance payment.

C. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,608,800 to Defendant B Co., Ltd. and KRW 54,560,000 to Defendant C.

On December 23, 2014, upon cancelling the instant contract due to the reasons on the part of the ordering authority, Nonparty Company demanded the return of KRW 108,800,000 for advance payment and returned the advance payment to Nonparty Company on January 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), witness F, testimony of G and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company should return each advance payment received by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff, on January 16, 2013, since the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant Company on the part of the instant construction work, and paid each of KRW 58,608,800 to Defendant Company B Company and KRW 54,560,000 to Defendant C Company as the advance payment for the construction work. However, upon the termination of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff returned KRW 108,80,000 that the Plaintiff received from the Nonparty Company.

B. The following circumstances, namely, ① F and G recommended the Defendant Company as a subcontractor for electrical construction during the first construction work, but the Defendant Company was not a partner company of the Nonparty Company, and thus, the Plaintiff Company concluded a contract for the entire construction work including electrical construction works with the Nonparty Company and negotiated with the Defendant Company to conclude a re-subcontract.

arrow