logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.05 2018가단214763
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant and the non-party C are abbreviationd to the Gyeonggi Yang-si Diala (hereinafter "Duri").

(E) a project to newly build F detached houses on the ground of land E (hereinafter “instant project”).

corporation G (hereinafter referred to as “foreign corporation”) with respect to which the overall construction is in progress.

(2) On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff contracted to Nonparty Company for construction with the outer president and the interior interior interior interior interior decoration work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) of the new construction works of the 26 square-type 1 household with H 26 square-type 1 household with the first ground level 26 square-type 1 household with the J 35 square-type 1 household with the second ground level 35 square-type 1 household with the second ground level 35 square-type 1 household with the lower company, which is a part of the construction work under the said project, and agreed to the other part of the construction work with Nonparty Company on September 5, 2014.

At the time of the compromise, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company agreed to the settlement amount of KRW 130,240,000, and the Nonparty Company agreed to pay KRW 60,000,000 among them to each Plaintiff until September 25, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 70,240,000 until October 24, 2014. However, the settlement of construction price was not made on June 30, 2015.

3) Therefore, the Defendant, who delegated the construction of a building for the instant project to the non-party company, is an ordering person who delegated the construction of a new building for the instant project to the non-party company, and is unable to pay the said construction price by closing the business on June 30, 2015 (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

(1) Where a cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs occurs, the person ordering shall directly pay the subcontract consideration corresponding to the part on which the subcontractor has manufactured, repaired, constructed, or provided services.

1. Cases where a principal contractor becomes unable to pay the subcontract consideration due to the suspension of payment, bankruptcy, or other causes similar thereto, or the permission, authorization, license, registration, etc. for his/her business;

arrow