안전한 바카라 사이트

1. Case overview

안전한 바카라 사이트 is a company engaged in construction and civil engineering works. 안전한 바카라 사이트 was a prime contractor that subcontracted the foundation construction work of the breakwater seawall (the "construction work") to the plaintiff, a subcontractor, through a subcontract on July 4, 2018.

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that 안전한 바카라 사이트 was obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction costs corresponding to the excess portion of the construction costs because the plaintiff incurred additional costs for various materials and additional usage fees for mobilizing maritime equipment during the construction work of the existing construction part.

The plaintiff also claimed that (1) 안전한 바카라 사이트 unreasonably shortened the construction period of the construction work by changing the construction period from 12 months to 5 months in the second site manual, (2) even though the plaintiff was unable to properly perform the construction work due to the deterioration of the weather conditions at the time, 안전한 바카라 사이트 refused the plaintiff's request for an extension of the construction period and notified the plaintiff of the termination of the subcontract, which constituted a violation of Article 16-2 (1)(2) of the Act on Fair Trade in Subcontracting (the "Subcontracting Act") and Article 22 (5) (3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and therefore 안전한 바카라 사이트 was liable for damages in tort to the plaintiff.

​
2. Our assistance

We argued that 안전한 바카라 사이트 was not obligated to pay the plaintiff additional construction costs because the delay in the construction work was caused by the plaintiff's delay in bringing in the floating barge necessary for the construction work, and that the plaintiff had sufficient time to carry out the construction work even according to the appraiser's opinion regarding the weather conditions at the time.

In particular, with regard to the plaintiff's allegations that 안전한 바카라 사이트 violated the Subcontracting Act and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, we emphasized that considering the purpose of Article 16-2 of the Subcontracting Act, it cannot be said that 안전한 바카라 사이트 violated that provision, and that as the plaintiff was aware of the contents of the first and second site manuals and entered into a contract with 안전한 바카라 사이트 to subcontract the construction work in this case, it cannot be said that circumstances such as the deterioration of weather conditions were difficult for the plaintiff to anticipate at the time of signing the contract.

​
3. The court's judgment: dismissal of 안전한 바카라 사이트's claim in its entirety

The court accepted 안전한 바카라 사이트's argument and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, reasoning as follows:

(1) In light of the fact that the delay in the construction work in this case was attributable to the plaintiff and that it is difficult to find any reason for 안전한 바카라 사이트 to be responsible for the additional construction costs, it cannot be said that 안전한 바카라 사이트 is obligated to pay the plaintiff for the construction costs.

(2) In view of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the delivery of the subject matter under the subcontract was delayed due to reasons not attributable to the plaintiff, it cannot be said that 안전한 바카라 사이트 violated Article 16-2 (1) (2) of the Subcontracting Act.

(3) As the plaintiff entered into the subcontract with 안전한 바카라 사이트 with full knowledge of the contents of the first and second site manuals, it is also difficult to say that 안전한 바카라 사이트 violated Article 22 (5) (3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by passing the responsibility on to the plaintiff for the matters that were difficult to anticipate at the time of signing the contract.

​
4. Significance of the judgment

​
By closely analyzing 안전한 바카라 사이트's claim for payment of additional construction costs based on a reason that could be considered force majeure, namely the "deterioration of weather conditions,” we clarified that the weather conditions at the time were in no way unfavorable for 안전한 바카라 사이트 to perform the construction work, which was the main basis for the court to dismiss 안전한 바카라 사이트's claim.

​
Furthermore, we argued that the wordings of provisions of the Subcontracting Act and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry could not be interpreted in the manner alleged by the plaintiff, and the court accepted our argument and found that 안전한 바카라 사이트 had not violated the Subcontracting Act or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

​
The judgment in this case is significant in that it may serve as a benchmark for determining the scope of the construction price to be paid by the main contractor to subcontractors in future cases where the existence of an obligation to pay additional construction price between the main contractor and subcontractors in a subcontracting relationship is at issue.

​

​□ Attorney in charge: Baek Kwang-hyeon and Han Weon-cheol