beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.02.10 2013가합845

공사대금 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 3,493,470 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 26, 2013 to February 10, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff (former: Co., Ltd.) entered into a construction contract with the Defendant and Gwangju Mine District D to construct a multi-family house with the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant building”) with the construction cost of KRW 530,000,000 from July 24, 2012 to October 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and began the instant construction work from that time.

B. From July 25, 2012 to December 24, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 390,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the instant construction cost.

C. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work.

On January 30, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract for construction works on the remainder of the instant building at KRW 80,000,000, and E completed the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 and 2, testimony of witness E and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. (1) The Defendant asserted that the instant construction contract was directly owned by the Defendant, and that F would manage each process necessary in the construction process and claim expenses incurred therein. The parties to the instant construction contract are F, not the Plaintiff.

(2) If the objective meaning of the language and text is apparent when a party to the judgment prepares in writing a certain contract as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s construction contract of this case is indicated as the contractor, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health stand in the instant case and the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted in light of the aforementioned legal principles. In other words, the Plaintiff’s construction contract of this case is indicated as the contractor; and the Defendant’s construction contract of this case KRW 340,000,000 among the construction price of this case.