logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.12 2016나3924
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim added by this court is dismissed.

3. Appeal expenses and interest.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant with regard to the electric generation business for the installation of electric power facilities (a total of design and related documents) and development activities (a total of authorization and permission necessary for the construction of electric power plants) on the land B and C, Chungcheongnam-nam-gun, and with a service price of KRW 77,00,000 (including additional tax). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 52,00,000,000 as service price in accordance with the instant service contract.

B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) a contract price of KRW 44,000,000 (including surcharges) for design and small-scale environmental impact assessment services in relation to whether the instant service contract is subject to execution, and the Defendant paid E a contract price of KRW 7,700,000 on November 11, 2013, and the Defendant paid E a contract price of KRW 11,50,000 on December 3, 2013.

C. However, as a result of the addition of the pre-disaster impact review work by the competent authority, the Defendant sent a down payment of KRW 9,900,000 to E and the pre-disaster impact review service on April 15, 2014, and the Defendant paid KRW 4,400,000 on April 17, 2014 to E.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into a design and a small-scale environmental impact assessment service contract (hereinafter “instant Ip service contract”) with respect to the land for H and one parcel outside of H, 1,000,000, the service cost of which was KRW 45,000,000.

E. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 11,000,000 to E on December 2, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 to the Defendant on February 17, 2014.

arrow