logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.08 2015가단89270
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. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). From June 25, 2013 to March 16, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract on the supply of equipment to KRW 320,00,00 (hereinafter “instant facilities”) with the OHC-1 assembly unit (hereinafter “THC-1,60,000,000, and July 15, 2014; hereinafter “instant facilities”) (a total of KRW 160,000,000,000 for payment period, and August 15, 2014) with ST 75/801 (a total of KRW 160,000,000,000 and KRW 320,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the supply contract”).

B. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C for the installation of equipment with design, manufacture, and installation of equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the total contract amount of KRW 190,000,000 (including electrical control). The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 4:Period of Payment: The instant facility - The method and time of payment for the payment of the price under Article 6 on July 30, 2014, ST 75/80 - the method and time of payment of the price: Contract deposit (30%) on August 30, 2014 - Payment after submitting advance payment, contract performance guarantee certificate - Payment, intermediate payment (40%) - Payment at the time of receipt of intermediate payment by C from the customer company of C after passing an examination from C at the factory of C, and payment by C at the time of receipt of intermediate payment from C’s customer company (30%) C’s customer company (FAT) - Payment at the time of receipt of remainder from C’s customer company

C. According to the instant contract, C paid to the Plaintiff as the down payment, the sum of KRW 62,700,000,000 on July 9, 2014, and KRW 32,700,000 on July 21, 2014, plus KRW 62,700,000 on a total of KRW 62,70,000 (additional tax on KRW 190,000 for construction cost) ¡¿ 0.3).

On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the instant facility to the Tylology, but did not have passed a trial test from the precision up to the present date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers), witness D, E, and F.

arrow