(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.28 2019나69490

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) 수원지방법원 2020.05.28 2019나69490

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff, setting the contract amount of KRW 127.6 million for the portion of the painting construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the construction works of Ansan-style Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction work”) as between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by December 31, 2016, with respect to the period of construction.

B. While the Plaintiff had been under construction, the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the construction work, and settled the unpaid construction cost at KRW 40 million on February 12, 2018.

In addition, the Defendant, on the same day, signed a direct payment agreement between D and D on the fact that the Defendant would not demand the Defendant to pay the above settlement amount to D, and the Defendant would not pay the said amount to the Defendant, and the Defendant would not pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as "the agreement of this case" in total of the above settlement agreement and direct payment agreement, / [based on recognition] Gap 1 to 4, and the purport of Gap 1 to 4 before oral argument.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The part of the Defendant’s main defense is alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate all claims related to the instant construction work upon the instant agreement, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

This part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. As to the claim of the plaintiff for the settlement amount under the instant agreement, the defendant asserts that the defendant extinguished the defendant's obligation to pay the construction price to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff transferred the settlement amount claim to D through a three-party agreement under the above agreement.

(2) (A) Determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the instant agreement.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.08.13 2015가합5145

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.21 2016나84537

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.06.01 2015나1784

-대구고등법원 2020.09.02 2019나26237

-부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가합55