beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나51508

침몰선인양작업대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a coastal cargo transport business, underwater work, etc. using a ship called “C” and the Defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of maritime investigation, underwater work, etc.

B. Around June 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to provide the Defendant with a transit line (referring to transporting the Defendant’s human resources and equipment from the land to D) and C/R (referring to arranging and transporting the components, etc. of vessels drawn up by the Defendant from water) with respect to the salvage of vessels D during the salvage of vessels leaving the Nakdong River performed by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). C.

In accordance with the instant service contract, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the instant communication and C/R services for the period of two months from June 26, 2017 to August 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to provide the instant service contract amounting to KRW 15 million each month, and provided the Defendant with the C/R services for two months, and the Defendant paid KRW 15 million per month to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant claimed against the Defendant for payment of KRW 15 million and delay damages for the remaining one month.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not agree to pay KRW 15 million each month with the service price in the instant service contract, but did not pay KRW 15 million each month, with the total service price anticipated to require the work period of KRW 15 million, and paid the amount by setting the amount of KRW 15 million. However, even if the work period exceeds one month, the Defendant did not pay additional expenses. Thus, the Defendant asserted that there was no additional service price to be paid to the Plaintiff.

3. The following facts can be acknowledged by integrating the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the testimony of witness E of the party concerned: