logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.13 2019나2009376
공사대금 잔금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the judgment is used or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] On Part 5 of the Decision of the first instance court, "Plaintiff" was changed from "A Co., Ltd. on December 10, 2018 to "YY Co., Ltd.," and "Plaintiff" without distinguishing it.

Part of the 11th judgment of the first instance court is "part of testimony of witnessO" in the 14th judgment of the first instance court, "each part of testimony of witnessO and witness F of the first instance court."

Part 11 of the Decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

C) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the other agreement (No. 8) of this case was unrelated to the subcontracted project of this case, and that the confirmation document of this case (No. 6) includes the amount of personal transactional relationship between F and D in addition to the subcontract price of this case, so it cannot be deemed that the settlement of the subcontract price of this case was made in accordance with the other agreement of this case.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 6, 8, 30, 32, and 35 of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the settlement of the subcontract price of this case was made through the other agreement of this case, and the testimony of the witness F of this case is not trustable.

① As well as the instant construction, F was involved not only in the construction, but also in the construction of a new building in the Seo-gu Incheon Z owned by D, and the instant confirmation document or the instant written agreement concluded with D was testified to the effect that the details of the construction of the building on the land owned by D were included in or the settlement of the construction cost was reached.

First, the construction of this case.

arrow