(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나6469 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나6469

공사대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

On June 2013, Plaintiff 1 entered into a construction contract with Defendant and Young A (hereinafter “instant hotel”) to perform construction cost of KRW 21,00,000,000, value-added tax of KRW 2,100,000, total amount of KRW 23,100,000, and KRW 22,000, and completed the said removal work on the 22th of the same month.

However, since the Defendant paid only KRW 17,600,000 among the construction price promised to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 5,500,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said unpaid construction price and the damages for delay.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract by classifying the interior works of the hotel of this case into the primary and secondary construction works, setting the construction cost of 23,100,000 won for the entire construction works. The Plaintiff did not complete the removal works only for C, which falls under the primary construction works, and the Defendant did not perform the removal works for the secondary construction works, and requested the removal works to another removal company (D) for a construction cost of 10,000,000 won.

Therefore, since the defendant has already paid the plaintiff more than the construction price for the primary construction work, it is not obliged to pay the additional construction price.

Judgment

Around June 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to perform the removal of the interior works on the hotel of this case at KRW 23,100,000,00 for the construction cost. The Plaintiff’s completion of the removal works on the first floor C of the hotel of this case on the 22th of the same month is not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

However, as to whether the scope of the Plaintiff’s construction to perform was limited to C-S-S-S-S-1 and No. 5-1 of evidence Nos. 4-1 and all of the arguments as to whether it was included in the c-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.17 2015가단59939

-대구지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단112174

-광주지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단531958

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나59329

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.12 2015가단210746