logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단7578
건축설계비등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking into account the reasoning of the evidence No. 2 of the argument, the Plaintiff is engaged in the construction design, supervision, etc. in Gyeonggi-do as the trade name “D”; ② the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant’s mother on the ground of “F land in Gyeonggi-gu” around October 25, 2007; ③ the Plaintiff entered into a lawsuit for the payment of service costs against E with the Jung Government District Court Decision 2010Kadan5090; ④ the Jung Government District Court paid KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on March 21, 201, and (ii) the Plaintiff issued a recommendation for reconciliation that the Plaintiff would not file a claim against the Defendant, who is the Defendant, on the ground of the above service contract.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff alleged that ① the plaintiff actually entered into the above service contract with the defendant. The defendant is obligated to pay the service cost, ② the plaintiff entered into the contract with E.

However, according to the above decision of the Reconciliation Recommendation, if E pays the service price to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff decided not to file a claim against the Defendant. Since E did not receive the service price, it claimed against the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the service price.

B. First, whether the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant solely on the basis of the statement of health account and evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the Plaintiff is a person who entered into a service contract with E, other than the Defendant.

Next, according to the above decision of the Reconciliation Recommendation, when the plaintiff received KRW 45 million from E, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant who is an son of E on the ground of the above service contract.

arrow