logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.09.20 2017나3180
용역비
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company, the main business of which is to provide services, such as manufacturing, installation, maintenance, repair, etc. of elevators.

The Defendant resided in 201 of Yongsan-gu Seoul apartment from March 15, 2013 to December 18, 2014, and was working as the representative of the occupants of the apartment from July 2013 to December 2013.

B. On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive elevator maintenance contract with the Defendant, the representative of the occupants of the above B apartment, on the elevator installed in the above apartment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

According to the contract(A)(Evidence 1), the contract term is five years from August 1, 2013, and the service cost is 209,000 won per month.

C. Around December 8, 2014, the Defendant was a director of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment.

On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail (Evidence A2) to the Defendant demanding the payment of service costs under the instant contract.

The content-certified mail refers to the service cost of 836,00 won (elevator inspection fee) from September 2015 to December 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is a party to the contract of this case as an individual who is not the representative of the tenant of the above apartment, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the service cost of 836,000 won and delay damages for the contract of this case to the plaintiff.

In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant concluded the contract of this case in the capacity of the tenant representative, based on the contract of this case, and the plaintiff continued to receive the service cost of KRW 209,000 per month from the later tenant representative of the apartment.

arrow