(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단5005839

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단5005839

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 70,000,000,000 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the subcontractor of the interior works (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) of Ansan-si Member C Ground Borrowing (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and the Defendant is the contractor.

B. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant contracted the instant construction work from E to January 31, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 440,00,000, and the construction period of KRW 330,000,000. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for the instant construction work from the Defendant until January 28, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 330,000,000, and the construction period of KRW 4440,000,000, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to respectively modify the construction period of KRW 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap's 1 to 3, 6, Eul's 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the claim for construction cost, the Plaintiff received KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant on December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on February 28, 2015 to increase the construction cost as KRW 440,00,000, and the Plaintiff’s performance of construction work until March 11, 2015. The Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 340,00,000 from the Defendant as the construction cost.

Furthermore, on March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to increase the construction cost of KRW 480,000,000,000. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 140,000,000, excluding KRW 340,000,000 already paid out of KRW 480,000.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff increased the construction cost to KRW 480,000,000 with the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, the evidence No. 5 1 to No. 9 are as follows.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가합110555

-부산지방법원 2014.02.12 2013가합17301

-수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단24788

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.19 2017가단2755

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017나56591