(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.27 2016나60935

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) 수원지방법원 2017.06.27 2016나60935

노임

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant newly constructed an officetel in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction”) is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that, from May 19, 2015 to August 30, 2015, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 14,950,00,00 to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the plaintiff are given the contract for the construction of this case, and the plaintiff was given a subcontract for part of the construction from J, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the plaintiff's wages.

The facts that the KJ has overall control over the construction of this case, and that the plaintiff et al. performed the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works under the direction of the J may be recognized by the testimony of the witness at the trial or by the witness at the trial.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the testimony of J, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1 to No. 3 (including each number) of the Defendant’s witness at the trial, that is, K initially continued to perform the construction of this case by being awarded KRW 20 million from the Defendant, and thereafter the J continued to conduct the construction of this case. The Defendant and J did not have any agreement between the Defendant and J as to the completion of the construction work and the completion of the completion of the construction work, and the Defendant’s wife submitted opinions to J from time to time at the construction site, and the J reported the volume of money received from the Defendant to time by classifying it by date, item, and item, and the J reported a total of KRW 100 million from the Defendant in relation to the construction of this case. However, it is difficult to view the above KRW 100 million as the construction cost under the contract, in light of the fact that it was deposited from time to time and paid as construction expenses incurred therefrom.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014고단4173

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.05 2015가단104358

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.21 2014고단4846

-대법원 2018.06.15 2018다207199

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.06 2018노99