(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.23 2019나119

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.23 2019나119

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

1..

Reasons

1. On August 8, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a contract for the construction of water supply of the said officetel with D’s representatives, etc. or approval from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for Management of Officetels (hereinafter “instant officetel”). Around that time, the Plaintiff completed the construction work.

However, the Plaintiff refused to pay only KRW 1.5 million on the ground that the representative E of the occupants of the instant officetel, and the Plaintiff did not pay the agreed construction cost so far, and thus, the Defendant, who is the head of the management office, claims the construction cost against the Defendant, who is the head of the management office, at the latest.

2. According to the evidence No. 1 written by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Plaintiff written a written estimate of KRW 2.470,000 in relation to the instant officetel’s repair work under the name of ASEAN around August 8, 2015, around August 8, 2015.

However, the above evidence No. 1 is not sufficient to identify who is the other party to the contract.

In other words, it can not be known whether it is a management office, a director D or a representative meeting of occupants.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant, who is the head of the management office, is liable to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff because he/she was an individual contracting party. However, the Defendant’s acceptance of the status of the head of the management office cannot be deemed to have received the obligation of the former head of the management office, barring any special circumstance. There is no assertion by the Plaintiff as to the grounds that the Defendant is liable

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is asserted to the effect that the liability for the contract performed in the position of the head of the management office is continuously borne by the head of the management office despite the replacement of the head of the management office, as seen earlier, D does not have evidence that the former head of the management office is the other party to the contract.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2013.10.24 2013고정80

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.28 2014고정2493

-대전지방법원 2015.01.15 2014고정688

-서울동부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노1574

-부산지방법원 2013.07.04 2013노1219