(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2018나63464

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) 수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2018나63464

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. Basic facts

A. On March 6, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the construction cost was set at KRW 220,00,000 (value-added Tax Separate) with respect to the remaining construction and interior construction of a building on the D-based D-based ground owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff, a company for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., was employed by C as the site manager and worked at the request of E, and completed the construction work at the construction site of this case.

C. On March 20, 2017 and April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice with the amount of KRW 11,000,000,000, respectively, to the Defendant; and on June 9, 2017, with the amount of KRW 7,238,000, respectively; and on March 22, 2017 and April 11, 2017, the Defendant remitted the amount of KRW 22,00,000,000 in total to the account in the Plaintiff’s name on two occasions.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both parties' arguments;

A. The Defendant delegated the conclusion of the electrical construction contract to the Plaintiff E, and the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant as to the electrical construction of this case as KRW 26,200,00 (excluding value-added tax). Since the Plaintiff completed all of the construction works, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid electrical construction cost of KRW 6,820,00 (= value-added tax of KRW 26,200,000 to KRW 26,620,00-22,000-22,00,000) and damages for delay. In domestic affairs, even if the Plaintiff did not directly conclude the electrical construction contract with the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price directly to the Plaintiff pursuant to the direct claim provision of Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

B. The Defendant, as the owner, awarded a contract to C with all of the instant construction work.

참조조문

-하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.05.03 2018가합28

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.04.24 2018가단61416

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.19 2014가합544710

-창원지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단109202

-부산지방법원 2019.04.30 2018가단309190