logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 07. 26. 선고 2012나11794 판결
대한민국이 이 사건 도급계약의 당사자이고 화성시는 계약상 수익자에 불과함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 201 Gohap17277 ( December 15, 2011)

Title

The Republic of Korea is a party to the instant contract and is merely a beneficiary under the contract.

Summary

The parties to the instant contract that the Republic of Korea (the Government Procurement Service) entered into with the Republic of Korea as an end-user institution is the Republic of Korea, and since it is merely the contractual beneficiary, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the other party to the instant contract has changed to the Republic of Korea, and that the other party to the instant contract or the obligor has changed to

Cases

2012 or 11794 Confirmation of a person entitled to deposit money

Plaintiff and appellant

AA Construction Corporation

Defendant, Appellant

BB Construction Co., Ltd. and eight others

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 201Gahap17277 Decided December 15, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 12, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

July 26, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On May 27, 201, and on May 27, 2011, Suwon District Court deposited in gold No. 5569 in Suwon District Court Decision 200 won, it is confirmed that the right to deposit KRW 00 is the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the trial. This court's reasoning shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In other words, even if the Republic of Korea initially concluded the instant contract as a party, the parties to the instant contract shall be changed at the time of harmony, or at least the obligor paying the construction cost shall be deemed to have changed at the time of harmony. Therefore, the instant assignment of claims is lawful (otherwise, the Plaintiff’s detailed assertion as to the legitimacy of the procedure, method, etc. of the instant assignment of claims is omitted).

B. Determination

For the following reasons, the other party to the contract of this case is bound to be considered as the Republic of Korea, and it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's argument that the other party to the contract of this case or the obligor for the contract of this case has changed to the point of harmony. First, the party to the contract of this case that the Republic of Korea (the Government Agency) concluded with the Government as an end-user institution is the Republic of Korea, and the contract beneficiary is only the contractual beneficiary (the party to the contract of facility construction which the Government has concluded for the Government-Funded Institutions, and the entity is the Republic of Korea, and the entity is merely the beneficiary under the above contract, and even if the construction was done as the business of the above end-user institution by the above end-user institution, all of all of the matters concerning the execution of construction or modification of the contract of this case except for the contract of this contract, the above end-user institution

Second, even if the plaintiff's change in the ratio of investment in the construction works or the joint supply and demand organization of the above construction works (the plaintiff submitted materials on June 11, 2012) is actual due to the above 202Da74947 decision, it cannot be viewed that only the contracting party or the debtor of the construction cost has changed to the ethication (the above reference materials are still made at the Incheon Local Government Procurement Service) and in this case there is no proof of the change in the contracting party's supply and demand(the evidence No. 9 is not possible to determine the legal status of the contracting party's supply and demand for the above 2009Da56160 decided Jan. 28, 2010).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for all reasons.

arrow