(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단209464

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단209464

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract to develop a computer program (hereinafter “instant contract”) and completed the development of the program around May 2014.

(1) Services name: The service price: 34,320,000 won: from February 17, 2014 to May 16, 2014.

B. However, on April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff received only KRW 10,000,000 out of the above service cost and did not receive the remainder.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the service payment or the amount equivalent to the service payment and the damages for delay on the basis of the parties to the instant contract or on the basis of each of the following causes:

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Rather, in light of the purport of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 and 3, the defendant entered into a contract on March 4, 2014 with the defendant on the contract price of 37,500,000 won (excluding additional tax) for the service of the construction of the above SKSPPPetet with the defendant on March 4, 2014, and only can it be recognized that the service price was paid in all by the seizure and collection creditor of the bill or Ri.

The plaintiff asserts that the bill was a contract of this case on behalf of the defendant, and if the right of representation is not recognized, the defendant is liable for the expression agency. However, there is no evidence to deem that there was an act of representation in the objection as to the contract of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the bill was an act of representation in the objection, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a right of representation or a basic right

B. In other words, if the plaintiff is the party to the contract of this case, the defendant is a subcontract.

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2015.05.13 2012나5603

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2013가단5158028

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.02.05 2015가단204129

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.07 2017고합318

-서울남부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가합106879