(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.15 2017나4628 | 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) 수원지방법원 2019.01.15 2017나4628

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

1. The defendant's main grounds for appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the total sum of supply values of each tax invoice issued by the plaintiff in relation to each of the instant construction works is KRW 181,486,745; and (b) the defendant does not remain to pay the above amount in full; and (c) the evidence submitted in the judgment of the court of first instance is not different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the judgment of the

Therefore, this court's reasoning is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant makes an additional determination as to the argument added by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant cannot pay the amount equivalent to the warranty bond out of the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the construction price, on the ground that the Plaintiff agreed to pay in cash the amount equivalent to 10% of the contract price at the time of concluding the subcontract or submit a certificate equivalent to the same amount.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the fact that the contract price of each construction of this case was 186,00,000,000 total contract price of each construction of this case, and the rate of the warranty bond at the time of conclusion of each subcontract shall be 10% of the contract price, and the fact that the warranty period is three years after the completion of the warranty period can be acknowledged. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant 18,60,000 won of the contract price of each construction of this case or deliver the warranty bond of the above amount equivalent to 10% of the contract price of this case, and the defendant's obligation of the construction price equivalent to the same amount is related to the plaintiff's obligation of the warranty bond

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da59051, Dec. 9, 2004). Meanwhile, the warranty bond is the contractor under the contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.01.18 2016나672

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.07.16 2014가단21097

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015나1541

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.14 2016가단13979

-광주고등법원(제주) 2020.08.12 2019나10721