(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단82052

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단82052

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant completed the construction work by being awarded a contract for the construction work of cutting, heating, and smoking construction from the construction site as follows, but did not receive the construction cost, and sought payment of the total amount of KRW 4,50,000.

The amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction at the construction site shall be KRW 13 million from April 2014 to September 27, 2014, the amount of which is KRW 20 million from September 2014 to October 1, 2014, the amount of which is KRW 15 million from June 2013 to May 1, 2014, the amount of which is KRW 16 million (the construction price shall be KRW 13 million, the material price shall be KRW 30 million).

2. In light of the overall purport of the arguments, it is difficult to find out the fact that the Plaintiff performed the above construction work by being awarded a contract from the Defendant for the construction work, such as the cutting, smoking, and decentralization in the above construction site. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of the remaining construction cost that has not been paid from the Defendant. There is no other evidence

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff notified the defendant on March 17, 2015 that the construction cost to be paid to the defendant on March 17, 2015, including the defect repair cost, was KRW 9,530,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

(3) On March 17, 2015, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the settlement amount of KRW 9.533 million to the effect that it would be limited to the construction price in the construction site B at the time of harmony, but the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff filed a claim for the settlement of construction price excluding the construction price that has already been paid at the construction site completed one year prior to the completion of the construction site at the time of 1 year is not persuasive).

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고단3185

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나26262

-수원지방법원 2019.12.24 2018가단552772

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.02.09 2016고단514