(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나57209

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나57209

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On December 17, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction work of replacing ESD lighting equipment at a factory owned by the Defendant located in Hanam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant contract for the construction work”) in the amount of KRW 42 million for the construction work cost (hereinafter “instant contract for the construction work”) may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the written evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. In addition to the completion of the construction work in accordance with the instant contract for the lighting project, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 2,583,735 of the additional construction cost and damages for delay, as well as for the completion of the construction work, including 14 lighting of office and 11 lighting of goods storage.

In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, 11 of the office lighting that the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff had been subject to additional construction works, and 14 of the company lighting equipment storage lighting, etc. was not entered in the detailed statement attached to the instant lighting equipment contract, and the instant lighting equipment contract was provided with support for the rationalization of energy utilization. It is recognized that 14 of the office lighting, etc. and 11 of the company lighting, etc. were not included in the list of the recommended facilities attached to the letter of recommendation for financial support, but that such facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to enter into an additional construction contract and pay additional construction costs as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단527649

-수원지방법원 2015.10.14 2014나25457

-서울북부지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나1012

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.12.01 2016가단281

-수원지방법원 2019.07.23 2018나66883