logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.07.24 2017가단4849
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff carried out the construction of a multi-family house C on the ground of the East Sea owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”). Since the Plaintiff was paid KRW 40 million out of the construction cost of KRW 74 million and was not paid KRW 34 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated from the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, witness D's testimony and fact-finding with respect to E-associations of this court, the defendant set the construction period up to July 31, 2017 when he awarded a contract to D (title F) for construction work of KRW 690 million around February 21, 2017. To obtain a loan necessary for the instant construction work, the defendant prepared a contract form with KRW 84 billion for the contractor G and construction work cost of KRW 8.4 billion to E-association (hereinafter "E-association"), and submitted a loan of KRW 50 million from E-association on April 27, 2017; the plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 300 million to the plaintiff around May 10, 2017; and the plaintiff submitted a written estimate of KRW 300,000 to the plaintiff on May 10, 2017.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s testimony of Gap evidence 3, witness D, and H alone exceeds KRW 40 million,00,000,000,000, in which the price for interior works (including additional works) performed by the Plaintiff prior to the discontinuance of the construction work, and the Defendant settled it with the Defendant and received the payment from the Defendant. The witness H’s construction cost corresponding to the portion that was not completed at the end of June 2017, is three-4.

arrow