beta
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 8, 2014, the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) subcontracted the tunnel excavation work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from the Suwon Integrated Construction Co., Ltd., the primary contractor of the “A bicycle lane construction” that was ordered by the luminous market price, and re-subcontracted KRW 426,80,000 to the C Company (titled business operator: D) that actually operates the tunnel excavation work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
B. On May 24, 2017, C Company transferred the instant construction cost of KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transfer of claims”); on the same day, C Company notified the Plaintiff of the transfer by content-certified mail; and the said notification reached the Defendant on May 26, 201.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. Under the premise that the claim in this case remains due to the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff legally received 60 million won out of the claim for the construction payment in this case from the Defendant, and sought 60 million won against the Defendant.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that since he was either paid to C Company from May 23, 2014 to February 5, 2016, or paid directly with labor costs, material costs, oil costs, etc. on behalf of C Company, the amount exceeds the contract amount with C Company in excess of 56,01,740 won, the obligation to pay C Company does not remain.
B. According to each statement of the evidence Nos. 6 through 14, the Defendant is recognized as having completed the payment of construction price exceeding the agreed amount to the C Company or C Company’s partner until February 5, 2016, prior to receiving the notice of assignment of the instant claim (the Defendant violated the provision prohibiting sub-subcontract as stipulated by the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and thus, does not deny the legal effect of direct payment).