logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.11.06 2014나8606
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,40,00,00 as the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses for the Plaintiff’s 20 days (=120,000 won per day x 20,000 won per day) as the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses for the Plaintiff’s 20 days, including the repair work under 102 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), 4,000 won for construction work on October 209; 1,000 won for the interior of the instant real estate from October 26, 2009 to November 14, 2009; and 2,40,000 won for construction work on behalf of the Plaintiff; and 1,440,000 won for the instant roof waterproof construction work (= 1,40,000 won for the Plaintiff’s construction work on behalf of the Plaintiff).

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the claim for the cost of repair work under 102) The defendant entrusted the repair work under 102 to the plaintiff, and the fact that the plaintiff performed the construction work is the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the cost of repair work under 102 to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances. 2) The defendant asserts that the claim for the cost of repair work under 102 has expired by prescription.

On the other hand, the above 102 claim for the repair work cost is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2549, Jun. 23, 1987). The plaintiff's assertion itself for 4 days around May 2009, and it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on Nov. 14, 2012, since the above 102 claim for the repair work cost was extinguished by the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's above 102 repair work cost claim, and the above argument by the defendant is with merit, and the above argument by the plaintiff is therefore groundless.

B. Determination of claims for the cost of waterproofing and waterproofing construction of outer walls is based on the following: (a) Nos. 6-1, (b) Nos. 7 and 8; and (c) testimony of witnesses C and D of the first instance trial.

arrow