(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018가단24858

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018가단24858

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) from January 30, 2019 to Plaintiff A, KRW 7,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 55,00,000 to each of them.

Reasons

1. With respect to new construction of F apartment on the ground of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is constructed by D, the marking contractor of the claim, (1) the Plaintiff A supplied steel products and expendable materials, and (2) the Plaintiff B subcontracted the construction of the mold and wood mold, and (3) the Defendant agreed that the construction cost should be appropriated from the unit sale price after completion of the apartment construction.

However, if the sale of buildings in units has not been completed later, D inevitably received the above apartment as payment for the construction cost, and the construction cost and the price for goods to the plaintiffs and the defendant were paid in lieu of the above F apartment G in the name of the defendant and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant.

At the time, the Defendant sold the above G units and paid the construction cost to the Plaintiffs later.

At present, although the above G market price exceeds the total amount of claims between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant merely makes payment to the plaintiffs by oral means, but the payment is delayed on the next day.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek the payment of the principal contract price claim and the settlement money equivalent to the appraised amount of the joint maintenance due to the liquidation of the partnership.

In the case of a juristic act attached to an associate officer, it shall be deemed as a condition when it is reasonable to deem that the additional officer does not perform his/her obligation unless the facts indicated in the subordinate officer have occurred, and where it is reasonable to deem that the additional officer should perform his/her obligation even if not only the indicated facts have occurred but also the objection has become definite, it shall be deemed as determining the time limit when the existence of

Therefore, if certain facts are attached to the repayment of the obligation already borne, it shall be deferred unless there is a special reason.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.10.18 2017가합1748

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.04.13 2020가단212608

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.04.05 2018가합100086

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.15 2017가단10619

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나9047