logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.24 2014가단233785
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to receive a contract for construction works with the following content:

(이하 ‘이 사건 공사도급계약’이라고 한다). ◎ 공사명 : B 신축공사(상가동 1동) 공사장소 : 태백시 C 착공연월일 : 2012. 10. 31. 준공예정연월일 : 2013. 6. 30. 계약금액 : 2,673,000,000 지체상금율 : 공사계약금액의 1/1000 ◎ 공사명 : B 신축공사(상가동 2동) 공사장소 : 태백시 C 외 1필지 착공연월일 : 2012. 10. 31. 준공예정연월일 : 2013. 6. 30. 계약금액 : 6,223,800,000 지체상금율 : 공사계약금액의 1/1000

B. The Plaintiff commenced construction works in accordance with the instant construction contract, but discontinued construction works without receiving construction payment from the Defendant.

C. On October 2013, the Plaintiff settled the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s performance according to the discontinuance of the instant construction work with the Defendant at the end of October, 2013, and agreed that the subsequent subcontract construction cost will be responsible for the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 60,000,000, which was settled according to the discontinuance of construction in this case, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the parties to the construction contract of this case are four persons including the defendant, and that the defendant does not have any obligation to pay the above construction cost.

In contrast, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the display act, and what terms and conditions of the contract have been written between the parties.

arrow