logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단8992
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on May 20, 2015 for the construction of the instant golf practice range located in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant golf practice range”), under which the contract amount of civil engineering works during the said construction works shall be KRW 350 million (excluding value-added tax), the contract period from May 20, 2015 to August 30, 2016, and the contract period from May 20, 2015 to August 30, 2016 (hereinafter “E”), and on December 7, 2015, the contract period of the building construction works during the said construction works shall be KRW 3.3 billion (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from December 2015 to May 2016.

B. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 56.4 million from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the construction of the instant golf practice range, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 85,750,00 after inserting equipment into D, and did not receive KRW 14,488,50. The Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost directly to D and E subcontractor, but did not pay the remainder of the construction cost. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50,238,50 (=(85,750,000 - 50,000) that the Plaintiff was not paid according to the direct payment agreement, to the Plaintiff for construction cost plus KRW 37,50,000,000,000 for the initial construction cost from August 27, 2015 to September 7, 2015).

The Plaintiff, as a construction business operator who entered into a subcontract with D, obstructed the construction work by means of demonstration, etc., asserting that it would be paid KRW 85750,000 from D.

The defendant includes value added tax on the construction cost claimed by the plaintiff, and only KRW 65.4 million and additional construction cost shall be KRW 15 million.

arrow