beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단105438

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from April 29, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2014, the non-party neighboring Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Neo-gu”) contracted the Defendant with the construction of a new multi-household housing located in Heung-gu Seoul. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff continued the construction by entering into a subcontract with the Mungdong-gu Co., Ltd. on the part of the foregoing new construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”).

B. On December 4, 2014, neighboring Korea prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a sales contract form for 101 Dong 201-dong 201 among the Cheong-gu Multi-household Housing in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the seller entered into as the sales contract for the instant construction work.

C. Thereafter, the Plaintiff received KRW 65,000,000 as the construction price of this case from neighboring Korea, and around March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff settled the construction price to be received by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant part of the construction project, including the additional part of the construction project, from neighboring Korea.

On the other hand, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 26, 2014 in the name of the defendant, which entered into a contract for sale in lots with the plaintiff, for the multi-household C Multi-household C Multi-household 101 Dong 201, 201, which was sold to D on April 1, 2015 and the registration of ownership transfer was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 15 (including branch numbers, if any), witness E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen above, the fact that the pre-sale contract for multi-household C multi-household C multi-household C multi-household C 101 Dong 201 was made out by the pre-sale contract to the Plaintiff is recognized, and the Defendant, recognized by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 14 and 15, delegated the pre-sale agency authority to the pre-life Korea in the So-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The fact that the Defendant delegated the pre-life Korea the pre-sale agency authority to the pre-life Korea.