logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나37728
공사대금
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 company that runs the building business and the design construction business, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures play facilities and landscaping facilities and engages in wholesale and retail business.

B. A around May 201, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for a part of the construction works of the welfare center in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul, with the trade name of A.

C. The Plaintiff, among the above welfare center works, shall conduct stairs installation works and play installation works (hereinafter in this case, referred to as “instant construction works”), issued a tax invoice claiming KRW 1,760,000, October 14, 201, and KRW 11,50,000,000 on October 25, 201, respectively, by having the Defendant supplied.

Upon receipt of each of the above tax invoices from the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,760,00 on August 8, 201, and KRW 12,100,000 on October 1, 201, and KRW 1,900,000 on October 4, 201, and KRW 1,400,000 on October 25, 201, and KRW 5,10,000 on October 31, 201.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 5,00,000 won (=1,760,000 +14,000 +14,000 +14,000,000 +11,500,000 +12,760,000 won-12,100,000-1,90,000 won-1,40,000-1,40,000 won-5,100,000 won out of the construction cost of this case since the plaintiff was entrusted with the construction of this case by the defendant and completed the construction of this case.

D. The Defendant asserted that the part of the instant construction was not liable to pay KRW 5,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, who is not the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to issue a tax invoice with respect to the part of the instant construction upon the Plaintiff’s request. As such, the Defendant did not pay KRW 5,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, and the Defendant received tax invoices on the instant construction work from the Plaintiff, and most of the construction cost therefrom.

arrow