(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.14 2015가단60234

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) 부산지방법원 2016.12.14 2015가단60234

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 February 23, 2015, the ground construction company contracted with the Defendant for construction of a ground plant and a new office in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do. On February 23, 2015, the company subcontracted to the Plaintiff the construction of steel structure (hereinafter “instant construction”). On March 2015, the company subcontracted to the Plaintiff the construction of steel structure (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 69,740,000 on March 16, 2015 with respect to the instant construction project, and the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 30.00,000,000 on March 17, 2015, and KRW 39,740,000 on April 27, 2015.

C. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an additional tax invoice of KRW 23,100,000 on the basis of the person who is supplied with the Defendant, but the Plaintiff refused to pay the said tax invoice, thereby revoking the issuance of the said tax invoice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant agreed to pay the instant construction cost directly to the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the ground construction company, and sought payment for the remainder of the construction cost and damages for delay, excluding the material cost of KRW 69,740,000, which was paid out of the instant construction cost of KRW 92,570,000.

As seen earlier, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with respect to the instant construction project and paid part of the price to the Defendant, as seen earlier by the witness A’s testimony and as such, there is a direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the ground construction company, and there is no evidence to find otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a three-party direct payment agreement 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

-부산지방법원 2017.11.24 2017나40648

-서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015가단5822

-창원지방법원 2019.09.05 2018가단122857

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.02.02 2015가단6658

-전주지방법원 2019.09.06 2018나7835