logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.09.13 2017나6717
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. The parties' assertion

A. The original senior non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) contracted the construction of a new building from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff subcontracted the construction of the toilet equipment, which is a part of the said construction, to the Plaintiff and completed the construction.

C Of the claim for the construction cost against the Defendant, C transferred KRW 28,380,00 to the Plaintiff, and completed the notification of transfer to the Defendant, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the said amount and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. Although there is a fact that the Defendant prepared a contract document between C and C, it is merely a form prepared in the name of C with a comprehensive construction license to complete the completion inspection. In fact, the Defendant ordered D to undertake the new construction work of the building.

Therefore, C does not have a claim for construction cost against the defendant, so the plaintiff's claim of this case must be dismissed.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. As of March 30, 2016, the date of preparation between the Defendant and C, a standard contract for private construction works entered into between the Defendant and C with the content that C receives a contract from the Defendant for the construction cost of 650,000,000 won (20,000 won per month (20,000 won per month according to additional dues, 20,000 won per month, and 3% per month per delay interest rate).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). At the time of this case, the said new construction was completed, and the instant contract is about the remaining works.

(see this Court’s Witness F). (b)

As of March 11, 2016, the preparation date between the Plaintiff and C was made on March 11, 2016, a standard contract form for private construction works that the Plaintiff receives from C a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 28,380,000 (excluding surtax).

C. Meanwhile, around April 5, 2016, in the name of C and D, “the instant contract is a form contract necessary for completion inspection, and C and D do not claim the Defendant the full amount of the construction cost, etc.

D. The construction cost.

arrow