logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.10.30 2013가합7015
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 824,335,334 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 6, 2013 to October 30, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

. The instant construction contract is “the instant construction contract”

(c) On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and the instant construction, concluded a subcontract for the contract amount of KRW 506,000,000 (supply price: KRW 460,000,000, value-added tax: Value-added tax: Value-added tax: KRW 46,00,000), and the construction period from March 25, 2013 to April 15, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “contract for the Construction of the Creative Team”).

(D) On May 6, 2013, the Defendant concluded a modified contract with B on the instant construction contract (hereinafter “instant modified contract”).

The main contents of the contract are as follows. The amendment to the contract for the original contract under Article 2 (Amendment of Contract) is as follows. The amendment to the contract for the original contract is as follows. The original contract for the changed contract amount shall be KRW KRW 30,000,000,000 [Additional Tax Table] of KRW 30,000,000 [Additional Tax Table] during the construction period from November 20, 2012 to April 30, 2013 to April 20, 2012, no change is made to the representative director E of the contractor who does not change the AD Factory New Construction Project on May 30, 2013 from November 20 to May 30, 2013.

(B) On May 31, 2013, while proceeding, the construction was suspended. The Defendant obtained approval for the use of the building of this case on July 19, 2013. 【Ground for recognition. 【Unsatisfed fact-finding, 1, 3, 7 evidence, 8-3, 4, 22 evidence, 3, 10 evidence, 18 evidence, and 18-1 each statement (including a number of items, if any). The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On October 26, 2012, at the Defendant’s request of the Defendant’s representative director E, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate on the instant construction work, and thereafter, the Defendant was a policeman among March 2013.

arrow