logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.12.14 2017가단528344
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the introduction of D, and the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Defendant to set the construction cost of reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 224,400,00 among the construction works of new commercial buildings located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and completed the said construction. Since the Defendant paid only KRW 184,00,000 out of the construction cost, the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the construction cost and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

2. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant with respect to the instant construction work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise is without merit without further examination.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with D, other than the Plaintiff, on December 1, 2016, setting the construction cost as KRW 224,40,00 with regard to the instant construction work as KRW 224,40,00, and according to the above contract, D was designated as the Plaintiff’s Gwangju Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant appears to have deposited KRW 180,00,000 out of the construction cost of the instant case into the Gwangju Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in light of the fact that D prepared a written confirmation that all of the construction payment of the instant case was received to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant entered into the subcontract with D, other than the Plaintiff, and that D paid all the construction payment of the instant case to D in accordance with the said contract.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow