(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가합742

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가합742

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Defendant is the former owner of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) used as a bath, and the buildings listed in paragraph (1) are the buildings listed in paragraph (2) “instant 601” and paragraph (2).

B. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior design contract (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to each of the instant buildings, as follows.

- On March 22, 2011, the date of preparation - The Plaintiff, the subcontractor, the subcontractor, the Defendant - the contractor - the contract price of KRW 209,000,000 (including value-added tax), 20,000 out of the contract price shall be paid in advance on the date of the contract, and the remainder shall be paid after the completion of construction - The period from March 25, 201 to April 25, 201

C. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”) performed the interior works in accordance with the instant construction contract form. As of September 3, 2012, the calculation of expenses incurred in the said construction works is KRW 250,854,849 (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 20, 28 (including provisional number), and the purport of the entire pleadings [the defendant asserted that the plaintiff forged the construction contract of this case. However, considering the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 3, and Eul No. 11, the defendant forged the construction contract of this case against the plaintiff, and submitted to the government office of the defendant around January 29, 2013 a false complaint to the effect that the government prosecutor's office was not guilty of suspicion on May 7, 2013 in the case where the defendant forged the construction contract of this case against the plaintiff, thereby filing a complaint with the plaintiff for non-prosecution disposition. The defendant submitted a false complaint to the government office of the government around January 29, 2013.

The facts charged are charged as the District Court 2013 Ma3814, which was charged for non-prosecution, and the prosecution was made on January 2015.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.04.25 2016나2074980

-의정부지방법원 2014.08.12 2012가단39783

-부산지방법원 2016.06.16 2014가단225775

-대구고등법원 2014.01.23 2011나8073

-대구지방법원 2019.08.13 2019고단771