logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.07.09 2013가합10963
손해배상
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 24,916,66 of the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from October 28, 2013 to July 9, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant Sejong Environmental Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sejong Mining Construction”) under which the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the removal of the D Hotel located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu C (hereinafter “instant construction”). From around that time to May 2013, the Plaintiff performed the instant construction work from that time to that time.

B. On May 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff left the construction site of this case while leaving the excavation ground used in the instant construction site, and attempted to recover the excavation ground at the instant construction site on June 6, 2013. However, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the eMX225S scoos and FEC04B scoos (hereinafter “each of the above excavation grounds”) from the excavation ground during the above construction site.

As to the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was unable to recover the excavation machines of this case, the following disputes arise between the parties:

2.(a)

(c) On October 3, 2013, the Plaintiff recovered the excavation of the instant case at the construction site of the instant construction site on October 3, 2013.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. On June 6, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that, as to the tort that prevented the recovery of the excavation season of this case, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the excavation season of this case by assaulting and threatening the Plaintiff who was trying to recover the excavation season of this case. Defendant B merely prevented the Plaintiff’s labor personnel, etc. who did not receive wages from the Plaintiff from recovering the excavation season of this case, and Defendant B did not relate thereto.

In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 20, and witness G testimony, the defendant B, who had been performing the construction work of the defendant Sejong Construction as a defect due to the plaintiff's possession of the scooters at the construction site of the instant construction site of June 6, 2013, after considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

arrow