logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원 2015.09.22 2015나5139
공사대금
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C, as his father and the father of the Defendant, and the father of Busan Shipping Daegu Down-do 202 (hereinafter “202”), and B 303 (hereinafter “303”), together with “202,” owned the instant loan. Around October 19, 2013, C concluded a contract with the construction cost of KRW 1.4 million for the waterproof Construction on the instant loan and the instant loan (hereinafter “instant construction”) and paid the construction cost of KRW 1.4 million to E.

B. After the instant construction work, there was a phenomenon of water leakage again in 303, the Plaintiff performed additional waterproof construction work.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 20, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work was completed after approximately four months since the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant for the waterproof Construction Work as set forth in 303, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, and the witness E’s testimony at the court of first instance revealing the overall purport of the pleadings, the parties who concluded a contract for waterproof construction work with the Plaintiff appears not to be the Defendant, but to be E.

① Around October 19, 2013, C entered into the instant contract for the instant construction project with the Plaintiff at KRW 1.4 million for the construction cost. The Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff determined the construction cost, period, and content, and C received KRW 1.4 million for the construction cost to E, and thereafter, E entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for a part of the instant construction project.

② Since the instant construction work, as water leakage occurred again, C requested E, other than the Plaintiff, to take additional waterproof measures, and E, demanded C to pay the additional construction cost of KRW 700,000,000 as the additional construction cost, but C must demand C to refuse payment and continue construction.