(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.04.24 2018나9188 | 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) 대구지방법원 2019.04.24 2018나9188

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. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff completed each of the above works by being awarded a contract with the defendant for the roof Corporation of the Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “D”) around July 2017, and the roof Corporation of the Busan-gu, Busan-do (hereinafter “E”) around September 2017. The defendant paid all the construction cost for the above D works, but did not pay KRW 17,029,000 for E works.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said construction cost of KRW 17,029,00 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 8, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant did not participate in the aforesaid E work, and that the defendant does not have a duty to pay the construction cost since C contracted the Plaintiff with E work.

According to the evidence Nos. 5 and 1 evidence Nos. 5 and 1, the Plaintiff is deemed to have issued a tax invoice for E Corporation with respect to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant as to E Corporation on June 14, 2017, namely, the circumstances known by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier; the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for E Corporation; the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the former construction from the Defendant; the Plaintiff completed the construction work after being awarded a contract with the Defendant; the Plaintiff continued the construction work at the construction site; the Plaintiff was also performing the construction work at the direction of the Defendant; and the Plaintiff’s issuance of the tax invoice to C was in compliance with the Defendant’s request. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s issuance of the

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is reasonable.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.18 2018가단239928

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2017나82804

-창원지방법원마산지원 2014.04.30 2013가단12795

-인천지방법원 2016.12.13 2015나18961

-대전지방법원 2015.07.15 2013가단219118