logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단59957
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 49,280,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from December 1, 2016 to July 21, 2017.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the principal claim Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract on October 4, 2016 with respect to the contract amount of the 70,400,000 won and the construction period from November 8, 2016 to November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with respect to the 4,5 stories in Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Remodeling Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction works being executed by the Defendant, and the fact that the construction was completed by the date determined by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 49,280,000, as claimed by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not receive, and delay damages therefor.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim against the principal lawsuit

A. The building subject to the construction of this case is the welfare house for the elderly and children, and falls under a specific fire-fighting object. In such cases, indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction shall meet flame retardation standards pursuant to Article 12 of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act.

Accordingly, the plaintiff confirmed the sampling generation constructed in the flame retardation film and decided to execute the construction of this case at the same time.

Nevertheless, since the plaintiff constructed it as a non-retardant film, the defendant is not obligated to pay the construction price to the plaintiff, and instead, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the construction of the non-retardant film of this case.

B. Therefore, in light of the overall purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff, upon entering into the instant construction contract, intended to construct the instant construction contract in the same kind and color as the previous film, following the Plaintiff’s performance of D. The Defendant prior to entering into the instant construction contract, is the film of flame retardation constructed in sampling generation and other colors.

arrow