1. Case summary
ㅇ A defendant (i.e., a contractor) was a legal entity intended to engage in manufacturing parts for ships, and the plaintiffs were subcontractors who entered into a subcontracting agreement with the defendant.
ㅇ In the past, some subcontractors had filed a civil suit against the defendant, claiming that they had entered into an agreement, pursuant to which the defendant would make up for wages, instead of directly hiring its workers, while the defendant had accepted a court’s decision on mediation or had applied for a decision on the recommendation of conciliation, with intent to promptly resolve the dispute. On the foregoing basis, the defendants filed this suit, claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement, pursuant to which the defendant would make up for wages (the “Agreement”).
ㅇ In addition, the plaintiffs filed a claim for default interest, additional tax and damages equivalent to penalties, claiming that they were to pay additional tax to VAT and penalties because the defendant had failed to timely pay the subcontracting prices to them.
2. Plaintiffs’ caseㅇ The plaintiffs asserted: the defendant is obliged to pay unpaid wages pursuant to the Agreement, and even if the plaintiffs had agreed to pay the wages, the Agreement should be invalid because it constitutes an unfair special term under the Subcontracting 스피드 바카라 사이트, and even if the Agreement is not invalid, the defendant’s 스피드 바카라 사이트 of making the unfair special term itself constitutes an illegal 스피드 바카라 사이트, and therefore, the defendant should pay damages to the plaintiffs.
ㅇ In addition, the plaintiffs asserted: since additional tax to VAT and penalties are ordinary damage, the defendant should pay damages to the plaintiffs that are equivalent to additional tax and penalties incurred to the plaintiffs due to the defendant’s delay in paying the subcontracting prices.
3. The court ruled that all the claim made by the defendant for damages caused by the breach of contract be accepted.ㅇ The court did not accept all the assertions made by the plaintiffs above, and dismissed all the claims for wages under the Agreement and damages equivalent to the sums of additional tax to VAT and penalties.
ㅇ In regards to the plaintiffs’ claim for the Agreement, the court dismissed all the claim on the ground: △ the plaintiffs fail to provide objective evidence to the court, and △ the mediation decision and the reconciliation recommendation decision made in the previous cases have the different circumstances than this case.
ㅇ The court also found that the evaluation guidelines for unfair special terms established by the Korean Fair Trade Commission, which the plaintiffs used as basis for their allegation of the unfair special term, are just internal judgement standards regarding unfair special terms prescribed in the Subcontracting 스피드 바카라 사이트, and even if the alleged agreement had been constituted an unfair special term, the court could not deny the judicial effect of the agreement made between the breaching contractor and the subcontractors.
ㅇ Meanwhile, in regards to the plaintiffs’ claim for damages equivalent to the sums of additional tax to VAT and penalties, the court dismissed all the claim filed by the plaintiffs on the ground: as long as the plaintiffs are obliged to pay VAT, the additional tax and penalties were just imposed on them due to their failure to timely meet their tax payment obligation, there is no causal relationship between the alleged damages inflicted by the plaintiffs and the defendant’s delay in paying the subcontracting prices.
4. Our assistanceㅇ We aggressively asserted and substantiated that this case is essentially different from the previous cases for the following reason: the mediation decision and the reconciliation recommendation decision made in the previous cases are not intended to accept the Agreement, the Agreement in this case is delicately different from the agreement at issue in the previous cases, and the agreement on the unit prices at issue does not unfairly abuse or limit the plaintiffs’ interests. We also highlighted that it is the plaintiffs who are obliged to pay VAT, and therefore, there is no causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ obligation to pay the additional tax to VAT and penalties and the defendant’s delay in paying the subcontracting prices.
ㅇ Attorneys in charge: Baek Gwang-hyun and Kim Ji-soo
