(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.07.10 2019가단114

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.07.10 2019가단114

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was Nonparty C’s request from April 2015 to June 2015, the Plaintiff performed the civil construction work of “YYD” on the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the Defendant delegated all rights, such as civil engineering work, to Nonparty C as the owner of the instant land, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with Nonparty C to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 78,148,500 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., ① Nonparty C’s seals and seals only on the part of the obligor on each letter and confirmation No. 3 (Evidence No. 2) stating that Nonparty C is liable for the payment of the unpaid construction price to the Plaintiff; ② Defendant did not affix a seal on the part of the obligor; ② According to joint business and construction contract (Evidence No. 3) concluded on November 2, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty C, according to the joint business and construction contract (Evidence No. 3) concluded on November 2, 2014, the Defendant invested in the instant land; and ③ Nonparty C agreed to assume the duty of development, such as civil engineering works on

In light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Defendant agreed with Nonparty C to bear the obligation for the construction cost of the said civil engineering works, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant jointly and severally with Nonparty C bears the obligation to the Plaintiff for the unpaid construction cost of KRW 78,148,500, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나1675

-서울서부지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나38454

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.05.13 2018가단92642

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.09.06 2018가단1038

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.15 2017가단228051