logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.18 2013가합3763
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 74,798,700 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 17, 2013 to December 18, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who conducts construction business under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and installing steel structures.

B. On July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant, the contractor, and the Plaintiff as the contractor (hereinafter “the primary contract”) with respect to reinforced concrete construction works among the new construction works of the C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

C. On August 23, 2012, the Defendant paid each of the Plaintiff KRW 100 million, KRW 100 million on September 13, 2012, and KRW 50 million on September 25, 2012.

On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant as the contractor and the Plaintiff as the contractor (hereinafter “second contract”) with respect to interior construction works among the new construction works of the C factory, which were ordered by the Seongbuk Construction Co., Ltd., from July 26, 2012 to December 20, 2012, setting the construction amount of KRW 378,00,000 as the construction amount, and setting the amount of KRW 378,00,000 as the contractor.

E. While carrying out the second and second works on October 13, 2012, the Plaintiff was additionally awarded a contract for installation of a racing and factory conference room (hereinafter “additional construction”) from the Defendant for KRW 10,200,000 of the construction cost.

F. On October 20, 2012, the Plaintiff ceased all contracted construction due to the strike by the panel of the public, and seems to resume construction thereafter, and was again interrupted on October 26, 2012.

G. Accordingly, the Defendant, from November 1, 2012, employed D, who was the Plaintiff’s site manager, at the site.

arrow