(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.04.28 2016가단1512

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) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.04.28 2016가단1512

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendant to divide profits by carrying out construction works on land, such as Boan-si D (hereinafter “instant construction”) on land, and thus, the Defendant should also be jointly and severally liable for C’s obligations.

Meanwhile, from August 2010 to December 2012, 2010, the Plaintiff was serving as the head of the site of the instant construction site and as the manager, and was in charge of the duty of guard of labor materials.

However, on August 7, 2013, C prepared a letter of payment (Evidence A1) to the Plaintiff to pay wages and expenses KRW 41,811,947 to the Plaintiff by August 30, 2014, and the Defendant, a partner, should also pay the said money.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant did not work at the construction site of this case.

The evidence No. 1 is that the joint investment agreement with C was made after the rescission of the agreement and is irrelevant to the defendant.

2. According to the evidence No. 2 of the judgment, the fact that the Defendant and C agreed to make a joint investment with respect to the instant construction project on June 4, 2010, but the agreement was rescinded on July 21, 2010 can be acknowledged.

Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case was whether the Plaintiff actually performed the construction work at the construction site between June 4, 2010 and July 21, 2010, where the relationship between the Defendant and C was maintained.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had been engaged in construction work for the above period at the construction site of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, in light of the fact that the date of preparation of the evidence No. 1 was three years after the date of cancellation of agreement and that the evidence No. 1 was included in the evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단5093306

-서울남부지방법원 2013.08.27 2013고단2066

-수원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노6699

-창원지방법원 2016.08.30 2015구단10460

-광주지방법원 2020.04.24 2019나60546