(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.26 2014가단32729

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) 광주지방법원 2015.02.26 2014가단32729

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 88,980,338 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 6% from June 18, 2014 to February 26, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim was received from the Defendant around November 201, 2013 the construction cost of KRW 350,000,000 from the Defendant for the construction of the Yansan-dong 133-24, 25, 26, and 47 Il-dong, Jung-gu, Jeonju-dong. The fact that the Plaintiff performed and completed the construction from November 5, 2013 to April 14, 2014 is not a dispute between the parties, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 259,679,855, out of the construction cost. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost (=350,00,000), -259,679,8555, and damages for delay.

The defendant's assertion is that since the quantity control system supplied by the plaintiff (the name of machine) is inferior to its operation and new construction of another product, the amount equivalent to KRW 12.5 million, which is its value, should be deducted from the price. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was any defect in performance in the quantity control system supplied by the plaintiff, and rather, according to the statement in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it is only recognized that the quantity control system supplied by the plaintiff was operated normally, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The defendant asserts that even though the plaintiff did not dispose of waste, the cost of waste disposal should be deducted from the cost of waste disposal because it included KRW 1,339,807 in the cost of waste disposal.

On the other hand, the defendant directly disposed of the waste, and the fact that the waste disposal cost was the cause of 1,339,807 is not a dispute between the parties, so the above cost should be deducted from the construction cost.

The defendant's above assertion is with merit.

Although the defendant asserts that there is a number of defects in the pipe connecting part, the defect repair cost should be deducted from the price. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect in the pipe connecting part constructed by the plaintiff, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The defendant shall have the work period of not less than 40 days.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단26577

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.28 2015가단13332

-부산고등법원 2015.06.16 2014나4385

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2017.08.22 2016가단3364

-의정부지방법원 2020.04.21 2020가단104286