logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단4913
물품대금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff: (a) knowing that Epis Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Epis Construction”) was constructed or licensed, the Plaintiff supplied 34,286,340 won at the site of Epis-gu Construction of Housing Units B (hereinafter referred to as “instant Construction”) executed by the Defendant during the period from October 16, 2016 to December 9, 2016; and (b) the Nonparty Company was not involved in the instant Construction; and thus, (c) demanded payment of the said amount against the Defendant, the owner of the instant Construction.

B. Defendant: The Defendant contracted the instant construction to C on September 29, 2016; and C was supplied with steel bars in the name of the non-party company; thus, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the supply price.

2. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, C received a contract from D on August 30, 2016 for the instant construction from the former So-gu E-young, Seoul, and the Defendant on September 29, 2016 for the construction of the instant construction from the non-party company’s name, the Plaintiff would be supplied with the said E site and the instant construction site at the instant construction site. Accordingly, the Plaintiff recognized that the construction site was equivalent to KRW 34,286,340 from October 16, 2016 to December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff arbitrarily supplied the owner of the instant construction to the non-party company with the signature of Nonparty 34,286,340 as the owner of the instant construction site, and the Plaintiff was not the owner of the instant construction site to the non-party company, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant construction site to the non-party company’s signature of each of the instant construction site at its discretion, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant construction site at its discretion.

arrow