logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.11.19 2017가단19004
공사대금반환
Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B: (a) KRW 9,840,000 on the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from January 31, 2018 to November 19, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to enter into a contract for the Eel remodeling project (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the cost of construction KRW 1130,000,000 for the Eel remodeling project in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

B. Since then, Defendant B paid the additional construction in addition to the instant contract, and the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 1.287 billion (including additional tax) to the account of Defendant B and Defendant C as the construction cost and the additional construction cost under the instant contract, as required by Defendant B and Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 7's evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion that Defendant B arbitrarily performed the additional construction work and there is a defect in the construction work.

In addition, the plaintiff has paid excessive construction amount as shown in the attached sheet to the defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the same amount as stated in the claims of the principal lawsuit as unjust enrichment or damages in lieu of defect repair.

B. (1) According to the evidence No. 7-4 of the part of the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff may be acknowledged as having deposited KRW 275 million with the account of the Defendant C as of March 10, 2017. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant C is not a party to the instant contract, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have deposited part of the construction payment with the Defendant C’s account at the request of the Defendant B, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return of unjust enrichment directly against the Defendant C or seek a compensation for damages in lieu of the defect repair.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) The part of the claim against Defendant B where the part of the claim against Defendant B is the person of Defendant B is KRW 2.44,00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

arrow