logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.02.09 2016가단31427
사해행위취소
Text

1. Defendant H: (a) 23,500,000 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 11,00,000 won to Plaintiff C; (c) 11,00,000 won to Plaintiff D; and (d) 7.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2014, Defendant H concluded a contract with L (i.e., the construction period from April 22, 2014 to July 22, 2014; and (ii) the construction period of construction from April 22, 2014 to July 22, 2014, with the construction cost of KRW 480,000,000.

B. L determined M as a field agent and performed the instant construction work, and M was inserted into the construction work in physical color with a construction business operator or a human body that actually performs the construction work.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Eul evidence No. 1, the witness M's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for construction price, etc.

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are construction business operators, work workers, or persons providing meals that they actually performed the instant construction work through M, and claim construction cost, wages, and food expenses as follows.

The following is to examine whether the price claimed by the plaintiffs by each of the plaintiffs is accepted.

B. According to the Plaintiff A1’s evidence No. 1, Defendant H, on August 29, 2014, agreed to pay KRW 23,500,000 as the construction cost to the Plaintiff who performed yellow culture construction work during the instant construction work. Therefore, Defendant H is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the construction cost of KRW 23,500,000 and the delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstance. 2) Defendant H asserts that Defendant H already paid KRW 33,40,000 as the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence No. 3, Defendant H transferred the sum of KRW 33,400,00 to Plaintiff A, but it cannot be concluded that the money paid as above falls under the construction cost that Plaintiff A should receive in light of the statement of evidence No. 8.

Therefore, Defendant H’s above assertion is rejected.

Defendant H also has a yellow brick built by Plaintiff A.

arrow