(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.14 2017가단5195216

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.14 2017가단5195216

하자보수금 청구의 소

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 64,250,526 as well as 5% per annum from August 23, 2016 to September 14, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with Defendant B for construction period of KRW 470,000,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax) from November 2, 2005 to March 2, 2016.

B. From October 29, 2015 to May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 494,400,000 to Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as Defendant B and Defendant C carried out the instant construction work in partnership with each other, Defendant C also asserts that it is a party to the instant contract, and Defendant C does not constitute a party to the instant contract, and therefore, Defendant C does not bear the warranty against the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the statement No. 1 and the testimony of the witness E, namely, that the instant contract was concluded in the name of the Defendant B, that is, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B appears to have concluded only the contract at the time of the instant contract, and that if the Plaintiff and the Defendant C agreed to be a contracting party, it was not difficult to enter the Defendant C as a contracting party in the instant contract, and that E is related to the change of use, although the Defendant B was the main part of the contract, it is not deemed as the Defendant C. In light of the facts that the change of use was not seen as the Defendant C, the mere statement of No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 6, and No. 7 cannot be deemed as the contracting party.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C on the premise that the defendant C is a party to the contract of this case is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant F’s appraisal of the cause of the claim is examined.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.01.16 2019가합102838

-부산지방법원 2017.12.07 2016가단335706

-서울고등법원 2020.07.22 2019나2055096

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단5121914