(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1334 | 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) 대전지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1334

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As the order of C, from April 21, 2015 to May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied scrap metal of KRW 3,053,050 (including value-added tax) to the D site where the Defendant directly performs construction, and the Defendant promised to pay the price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,053,050 won for steel products and damages for delay.

B. Even if the Defendant contracted D works to another company, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the said steel products and the damages for delay pursuant to Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

2. Determination

A. Data to verify which extent the Plaintiff supplied at the construction site of D is limited to the transaction list prepared by the Plaintiff himself/herself (A1), and there is no other evidence to determine the details of the goods supplied, such as the receipt.

B. Even if the Plaintiff supplied the hardware of KRW 3,053,050 at the D construction site, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant is liable to pay the price in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A2 through 7 and 1 through 5.

1) The Plaintiff received orders from C and supplied steel products at D construction site (the first instance trial protocol). However, in light of the following facts, it is not clear whether C ordered the Plaintiff with any qualification.

In other words, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is based on the premise that the Defendant carried out all D works directly by the Defendant, but there is insufficient objective evidence to determine whether the Defendant carried out construction works directly, whether the Defendant provided a blanket subcontract to C, whether the Defendant carried out construction works directly, and whether the Defendant provided a subcontract to E, etc., and what is the statement between the Defendant and C.

Part directly constructed by the Defendant

Even if the steel supplied by the plaintiff is related to the defendant's direct construction work.

참조조문

-하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.08.09 2017가단104086

-창원지방법원 2018.09.20 2017나6690

-창원지방법원 2015.03.31 2014나3263

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.14 2020나39251

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나10268