(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.01.06 2015나31180

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) 창원지방법원 2016.01.06 2015나31180

공사대금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 47,115,00 as the construction cost, and penalty of KRW 30,00,000 under the conciliation clause against the Defendant and C. The court of first instance accepted both the Plaintiff’s claim against C and dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

As to this, among the part against the Plaintiff, only the claim of KRW 25,636,00 for the construction cost related to the landslide flood restoration (hereinafter “D District Construction Contract”) in two places outside D and 2, 2011, which were received from the Defendant, was lodged, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost of KRW 25,636,00 for the said D District Construction Contract against the Defendant.

2. According to the evidence No. 1-2 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the construction of a zone D with the Defendant around February 2012, 2012, with the following content.

1. Construction contractor: The name of the Corporation in charge of the settlement of accounts under the C Primary Contract: A landslide flood restoration project (D zone) in 2011;

2. Construction place: D in Jinju and two other places;

3. Period: April 30, 2012 after completion of February 8, 2012.

4. Contract amount: The value of supply in the daily gold of KRW 100,000 (Won 100,000,000): the equipment-based gold of KRW 80,000 (Won 38,000,000 in the daily gold of KRW 38,000 in the daily gold of KRW 38,00 in the daily gold of KRW 38,00 in the daily gold of KRW 38,00 in the daily gold of KRW 38,00 in the daily gold of KRW - the separate settlement of the

3. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not receive the total amount of KRW 20 million, value-added tax, total amount of KRW 5,636,00 in relation to the D District Construction Contract. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the construction cost set forth in D District Construction Contract is KRW 100,000, and the defendant paid the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

4. The judgment was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purpose of the D District Construction Contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.02.06 2013가단16028

-대구고등법원 2015.09.23 2014나21138

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.24 2013가합3895

-대구지방법원 2014.05.22 2013가합202520

-대구지방법원 2014.05.22 2013가합6449