(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가단9978

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) 청주지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가단9978

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction cost of KRW 130,000,000 for the Chungcheong-gun C New Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant. As to the payment method of the construction cost at the time of the contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 30,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000,000 at the time of the contract and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000 after the completion of the contract.

However, the Defendant paid only the total sum of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, and KRW 50 million on September 17, 2013, and September 25, 2013, and did not pay the remainder KRW 50 million even after the completion of the instant construction work, and thus, sought payment of the amount stated in the claim against the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment. The claim for the payment of the remainder of the construction of the construction of this case against the defendant constitutes "claim for the construction work of the contractor" under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and if it is not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription is complete. In full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement No. 3, the construction of this case is acknowledged as having obtained approval for use after completion of construction from the head of Chungcheong Gun on June 10, 2014, and the fact that the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against the defendant on August 4, 2017, which is apparent that the three years have passed since the plaintiff had passed thereafter, is clearly stated in the record. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the construction payment of this case has expired.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review as to the remaining points, such as whether the plaintiff completed the construction of this case.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제3호

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.04.24 2018가단15625

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.06.11 2014가합11412

-대전지방법원 2016.07.21 2015가합104873

-서울서부지방법원 2013.11.28 2013가합3491

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.21 2016가합530197