(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.19 2017나173

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 2017.09.19 2017나173

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of internal facility construction, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person registered as a business entity with the trade name of “D” located in Ansan-si.

B. From June 2015 to July 2015, the Plaintiff performed the internal facility construction on “D”.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”). 【Ground for recognition”: 【Us. 1, 4, and evidence Nos. 2, 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments without dispute.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work in accordance with the construction contract with the Defendant. At the Defendant’s request, the construction price was increased from KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 38,050,000, which was the first agreed upon due to a partial change in construction work.

However, since the defendant paid only KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 8,050,000 to the plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

B. The Defendant only lent only the name for the registration of the Defendant’s business, but is not a party to the instant construction contract (E’s assertion to the effect that it is a party to the instant construction contract), even if not, the total construction cost agreed upon due to the instant construction work is less than KRW 34,00,000, and the Defendant paid all of them to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the parties to the contract, or in full view of the description of evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is registered as the business entity of "D", the fact that the construction work of this case initiated by the plaintiff was conducted with respect to the above "D", and the defendant also purchased insurance in preparation for the case where liability for damages is incurred due to defects, etc. in the above business establishment, and according to this, even if it is assumed that the construction work of this case was actually carried out E, it shall be between

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.28 2014가합48007

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.10.24 2019가단3138

-울산지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나893

-수원지방법원 2016.07.15 2015나45823

-인천지방법원 2021.04.16 2019가합65541