(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.14 2019나33733

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.14 2019나33733

공사대금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for this part of the arguments by the parties are as follows, except for the addition of the part below to the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part of the reasoning

[A] Even if the Plaintiff deemed to have completed the instant construction project through E, the Defendant paid the labor cost, material cost, etc. to the Plaintiff in total to KRW 231,080,414 (i.e., the supply price of KRW 118,670,670,00, excluding value-added tax, out of KRW 38,520,372,00, the supply price of KRW 42,896,560,560,560, excluding value-added tax, out of the supply price of KRW 268,729,306, excluding value-added tax, out of the supply price of KRW 54,545,45,650,60,000, excluding value-added tax, out of the construction price of the instant case, excluding value-added tax, out of the total supply price of KRW 131,856,00,00).

3. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the evidence No. 3 as to the Defendant’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost, the fact that the Defendant paid labor costs and material costs to labor workers and material enterprises in relation to the instant construction work is recognized.

However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 7, and Eul evidence No. 2, evidence G of the first instance court, and Eul’s testimony of the witness E of the trial, namely, ① the defendant’s employee H made a statement at the court of first instance for the same purpose as the defendant’s assertion, and the plaintiff’s work related to completion is entirely

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.01.08 2019나10569

-인천지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나13390

-수원지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나58752

-광주지방법원 2017.07.06 2016나6060