(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.12.09 2015가단30305

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.12.09 2015가단30305

노임금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,60,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the instant construction work to KRW 68,800,000 for construction cost, among the multi-household new construction works that is available for the Government-si from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. However, the Defendant paid only 15,000,000 won out of the fixed construction cost, and did not pay the remainder of the construction cost from time to time.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the termination of the instant construction works as follows:

(hereinafter “instant agreement.” The Plaintiff, while the instant construction is in progress, did not facilitate the payment of the progress payment, agreed to receive KRW 15,600,000 out of the total progress payment of KRW 40,600,000, and receive the remainder of KRW 25,600,000, and suspend the work, and the work is suspended until July 15, 2015, and the work is to be conducted by selecting the other company and having the other company select and carry out the remainder. The Plaintiff agreed to allow the Plaintiff to bring in from the brick.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff 3 is as follows.

B. The remainder of the construction cost of the instant agreement by the Defendant includes either snow or waste water supply cost of KRW 25,600,000.

However, since the plaintiff did not perform the above part, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the relevant legal doctrine shall be objectively interpreted as having expressed the parties’ intent in accordance with the terms and conditions indicated in the disposition document, barring any special circumstances. In a case where there are differences in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the relevant legal doctrine shall be comprehensively examined in light of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.10.26 2015나991

-부산고등법원 2015.12.03 2015나2324

-대구지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나308659

-수원지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가합72477

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.04.26 2016가합5398