logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.23 2016가단54094
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, based on the facts, subcontracted the AL original production work (hereinafter “instant 1 construction work”) among the new construction works contracted by Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), to KRW 379,500,000 (including value-added tax) on July 17, 2014; KRW 437,800,000 (including value-added tax) for construction work price on September 2, 2014; KRW 437,800,000 for an officetel production work (hereinafter “instant 2 construction work”); among the new construction works contracted by Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. from Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant 3 construction work”); KRW 117,70,000 for construction cost on October 8, 2014; and KRW 000 for value-added tax (including value-added tax) for each share.

On January 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on January 14, 2015, part of the three construction works in the instant case in KRW 17,740,000 (excluding value-added tax); (b) the same year

6. 48,560,000 won (excluding value-added tax) for part of the construction work in this case

4. On 29. 29. Part of the instant Second Construction Works was re-subcontracted with the construction cost of KRW 28,976,00 (excluding value-added tax), and the double double smoke hold Construction Work changed the price for the design modification into KRW 40,860,00 (excluding value-added tax).

Although each of the instant construction works was completed on or before October 18, 2015, the Defendant has not been paid KRW 89,333,600 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “paid price”) out of the construction price from the re-Gyeong system until now.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-2, 22-2, 37, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion based on the direct payment agreement (the first argument) reached an agreement to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount directly to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a direct payment agreement or Article 14 (1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter "subcontract Act").

arrow