logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.12.05 2019나54150
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) although the Defendant was engaged in exploration for the development of underground hot spring water in Changpo-si, Changpo-si, Changpo-si, the Defendant owned, the Defendant did not pay KRW 300,000,000,000, out of the 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

B. On June 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are obliged to pay 300,000 won unpaid exploration expenses to the Plaintiff, unless there is any dispute between the parties or according to the overall purport of pleadings, on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000 from the Defendant after completing the exploration work for groundwater, and thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid exploration expenses of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant.

Since the defendant alleged that he/she paid KRW 300,000 for unpaid exploration expenses on July 1, 2018, the defendant asserted that he/she paid KRW 300,000,000 to the plaintiff's account on July 1, 2018, according to the evidence No. 2, the defendant's defense of repayment is justified.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

C. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the allegation of the cost of installing pollution prevention facilities, the Defendant’s defect in the Defendant’s underground water pipe located in the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s fact that part of construction work was performed by considering the construction site E, which is the construction business operator, is acknowledged, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s defect in the Defendant’s underground water pipe, which was installed in the instant land

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8 is alone.

arrow