beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.02.05 2017가합58076

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

(c) shall be.

G. The written agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff (K) in the capacity of the Defendant’s agent, and the date of its preparation is December 22, 2014, as follows:

Article 2 (Matters of Agreement) of the Agreement.

2. The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff filed a claim with the contractor for the completed portion (650,000,000 won) of the existing construction work, and the defendant succeeded to the settlement of the construction cost when G and the plaintiff settle the construction cost, and the remaining construction works shall be succeeded to the contents of the original contract.

3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are aware of the agreement between the owner and the owner E and the new executory company on the execution and construction, and intend to smoothly proceed with the remaining construction work in mutual cooperation.

4. After the conclusion of this Agreement, the agreement on this case will be valid after the new executor acquired the ownership of the land and the right to a building permit in full, and will be responsible for the content of the agreement.

*Documents: Proxy

H. The defendant is E.

Based on the provisional registration stated in paragraph (1), on December 29, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land was completed on November 5, 2014 due to sale and purchase as of November 5, 2014, and on August 19, 2016, the name of the owner of the instant construction was changed to the defendant.

(No. 20 of June 20, 2016). [Grounds for Recognition] / 【Unsatisfy, entry in Gap’s 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 15, Eul’s evidence No. 26 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The effect of the instant agreement extends to the Defendant.

1) The Plaintiff drafted the instant agreement with theO, a legal representative of the Defendant, and the instant agent. 2) The Plaintiff did not have the power to prepare the instant agreement with the domestic director.

Even if the defendant grants the O a comprehensive power of representation for all acts related to the progress of the instant construction, etc., the defendant is responsible for the expression agency under Articles 126 and 129 of the Civil Act.