logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2014나41664
지체상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a construction business under the trade name of “F,” and the Defendant is a person who runs a steel wholesale and retail business under the trade name of “G.”

B. On June 27, 2013, H, represented by the Plaintiff, drafted a “contract for the framed Construction Work” with the content that the Plaintiff subcontracts to the Defendant for the Iron Construction Work (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). D signed the said contract under the name of the Defendant, and affixed a seal with the name of the Defendant affixed.

Contract Name: 190,00,000 won and value-added tax separate construction, F refers to A, and G refers to the contractor and enter into a contract as follows.

Article 1: The construction period shall commence on June 27, 201 and complete the construction by July 30, 2013.

Article 8:Compensation for Delay

1. If construction work as referred to in subparagraph 1 is not completed by the contract date, B shall pay A penalty for delay equivalent to the amount of 3/1000 of the contract amount per one day of delay;

In such cases, the compensation for delay may be deducted from the price paid by A in preference.

C. The Plaintiff, on June 27, 2013, remitted KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 72,30,000 on July 11, 2013, and KRW 72,30,000 on July 26, 2013, respectively, and the Defendant issued a tax invoice with regard to the transferred amount under the name of G as “H beam Processed Processed Other”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that D entered into the instant subcontract on behalf of the defendant on behalf of D, and even if the defendant did not grant D the power of representation to D to prepare the said contract, the defendant is responsible for the expression agency (the defendant appears to have claimed the representation of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act).

arrow