logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.28 2016가단350132
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 136,40,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 11, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff completed the instant construction work by being awarded a contract with the Defendant for incidental construction and interior construction of the “C golf course” (hereinafter “C golf course”) in Jeju-si (hereinafter “C golf course”) from the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 136,400,000 from the Defendant.

B. The conclusion of the instant construction project with the Plaintiff is whether the Defendant was a representative D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) or not the Defendant.

In addition, since the plaintiff has already filed a claim for the same construction cost against D, this case constitutes double litigation.

2. Where a party to the lawsuit in this case and the same subject matter of lawsuit are brought with different time, the lawsuit brought later is unlawful as it violates the principle prohibiting double lawsuit.

On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D against D in the instant case claiming for the remainder of the construction due to the instant construction project, KRW 136,400,000, and delayed payment thereof, and filed a complaint against D in September 21, 2016, which was served on D on September 29, 2016, and the preceding case is pending in this court as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case. In addition, on November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in the instant case claiming for the remainder of the construction due to the instant construction project, and the Defendant served on November 10, 2016, the fact that the complaint was served on D in this court is significant.

However, prior cases and this case are the same subject matter of lawsuit, but they are different from the parties, so they do not constitute duplicate lawsuits.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a written contract with the construction cost of KRW 310 million (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from May 4, 2016 to July 10, 2016, and the Defendant entered into the said written contract.

arrow