logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2020.08.19 2019나22943
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company that mainly aims at building and selling ships, etc., and the plaintiff is a company that mainly engages in pipeline services related to the ship built by the defendant as the defendant's in-house subcontractor.

On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a basic contract of subcontract transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to subcontract part of the intermediate work undertaken by the Defendant to the Plaintiff during the construction of vessels, etc. (hereinafter “instant basic contract”) and a unit price contract for calculating the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant unit price contract”) respectively. In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an factoring payment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to increase or decrease the construction price by multiplying the construction price calculated according to the individual construction contract by the factoring (FACTR) calculated in consideration of the difficulty of construction, worker’s skill, night work degree, etc.

According to the unit price contract of this case, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by multiplying the number of works performed by the Plaintiff by 24,387 won per unit price by the number of works, M/H pursuant to each individual subcontract concluded based on the basic contract of this case.

According to the factoring payment contract of this case, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction price calculated as above to the Plaintiff by multiplying the factoring premium rate set by the Defendant. The factoring premium rate set by the Defendant from October 2016 to December 2016 is 1.05, and 1.08 from January 2017.

From the conclusion of the instant basic contract to February 9, 2017, the Defendant concluded a number of individual subcontracting agreements with the purport of providing the Plaintiff with a subcontract for each work several times.

(hereinafter referred to as “each individual subcontract of this case”). The period from October 2016 to January 2017, 201, etc.

arrow