logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.07 2018나202720
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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is to add the following “2. Additional Determination” to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to the court of first instance, and this is to be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following alterations.

The 3rd page 14 of the first instance judgment "the same as the changed construction amount" shall be changed to "8,829,774 won" of the 4th parallel 6th parallel 19 changed to "the 80,754,340 won of the changed construction amount," and "the 4th parallel 58,829,774 won" of the 53,829,774 won of the changed construction amount (the 50,329,774 won of the changed construction amount)" to "the 80,754,340 won of the changed construction amount," "the 4th parallel 9th parallel 19, "the 10th side of the plaintiff," "the 4th 10th parallel 4,50,00 won", "the 4th parallel 10th 4," "the 10th 4th 7,579,789.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant subcontract since the Plaintiff entered into the instant subcontract with D and thus, the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant subcontract. As such, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely,: (a) F, working for the Defendant’s site director, prepared a confirmation document stating that the party to the instant subcontract is the Plaintiff; (b) D, from June 2015, the Plaintiff served as the employee of D from June 2015; (c) deposited wages into the account in the name of D or D’s children for the convenience of D; (d) D, the Plaintiff’s employee, prepared the specifications for the conclusion of the instant subcontract; and (e) appears to have been written as “H” on each of the specifications (Evidence No. 3 and 5) submitted by the Plaintiff, which was written as “H” on April 7, 2015.

arrow