logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.11.30 2017가단255800
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received a contract from the Defendant for the installation of a building on the ground of 262 square meters in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, for electrical construction, and shipbuilding, and Nonparty D performed all duties related to the said construction as the Plaintiff’s agent, and completed all construction works around May 19, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 79,727,415 [the total construction cost of KRW 245,573,705 [the total construction cost of KRW 49,500,000 for the electrical construction cost of KRW 344,346,290 for the electrical construction cost of KRW 125,540,000 for the total construction cost of KRW 36,327,415 for the total construction cost of KRW 33,50,00 for the construction cost of KRW 165,846,290 for the construction cost paid by the Defendant];

B. The Defendant asserted that the construction contract was concluded with Nonparty D rather than the Plaintiff, and paid all the construction cost.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

2. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff's business registration was made under the trade name of Eul, ② the plaintiff and Eul (mutual name E) are acknowledged as having died on March 21, 2017 to non-party F (G) for construction during the new construction work; the electrical construction during the new construction work was subcontracted to non-party H (I); the non-party J and K (L) for construction during the new construction work; the non-party Y on April 23, 2017; ③ the person ordering each of the above subcontract agreements entered the name of the defendant; and ④ the death on May 21, 2017.

However, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the person who received a contract from the defendant is the plaintiff and that the defendant's unpaid construction cost is KRW 79,727,415, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow