beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.20 2017가단514926

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a multi-family house to D and Gangwon-gun E (hereinafter “instant construction”) and carried out the construction work.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 72 million from D as the contract price for the instant construction work.

C. On July 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and sent to D a letter of waiver of construction as shown in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant letter of waiver”). D.

D The Defendants died on December 24, 2016, and succeeded to D's property in proportion to 1/2 of each of the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3 evidence, Eul's 1 to 11 (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the construction work of this case was suspended at the time of the plaintiff's suspension of construction, and the construction work of this case was KRW 110 million, but only received KRW 72 million from D as the construction work of this case, and the remaining construction work was not paid KRW 38 million. Thus, the plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 19 million as the above KRW 38 million against the defendants, who are the heir of D, and claimed payment of KRW 90 million as the inheritance subrogation registration cost to receive the provisional attachment order, and thus, the plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 90,000 as the above KRW 90,000,000,000,000 for each of the above 90,000 won.

As to this, the Defendants paid all the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff renounced the instant construction work and did not exercise any authority such as the construction cost, etc. concerning the instant construction work, so the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is asserted to the effect that it is unjust.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 38 million out of the construction cost of the instant construction work by itself, based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 4.