(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2018가단6210

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) 인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2018가단6210

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted with the Defendant for construction work for accommodation facilities located in the Sincheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (hereinafter “instant 1”) at KRW 121,00,000 (including value-added tax) for construction work; and (b) performed the said construction work.

B. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 24,000,000 (including value-added tax) among the construction works for the construction works for the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the Magdong-gu Magdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant second construction works”).

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a contract with the Defendant for an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 24,00,000 for the instant construction work (excluding value-added tax) and performed the additional construction work under a contract with the Defendant for an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 12,00,000 for the instant construction work (excluding value-added tax). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the additional construction cost of KRW 36,000,000 for the additional construction work (= KRW 24,000 for the KRW 12,00,000 for the additional construction work) and damages for delay.

B. The evidence presented alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an additional contract as alleged by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant construction work Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.06.18 2014나30935

-인천지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가단56709

-전주지방법원군산지원 2016.02.18 2014가합422

-창원지방법원 2018.02.22 2016나60192

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.12.10 2014가합1036