logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.07.08 2014나4643
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. Basic facts

A. D, a director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), requested the Plaintiff to perform the stone construction work during the extension and substantial repair of bathing rooms of buildings listed in the [Attachment List Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C (hereinafter “C”), and requested the Plaintiff to submit a written estimate of construction work with construction cost of KRW 342,583,500 on July 17, 2008.

B. After receiving the said written estimate from D, the Plaintiff performed construction works on the second floor and wall surface of the instant building from September 2008 to January 201, 201, such as the second floor and wall surface of the instant building, the third floor toilet and wall surface, the fourth floor and wall surface of the instant building, stairs and wall walls of the first floor to six floors, elevator walls, external columns and floors of the building, and rooftop towers.

(hereinafter “instant primary construction project”). C.

Since then, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant who purchased the instant real estate at the auction procedure on April 30, 2010, the aggregate of KRW 31,400,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant as the construction cost of the instant secondary construction project, as the construction cost of the instant secondary construction project, from the Defendant, as the construction cost of the instant secondary construction project (hereinafter “instant secondary construction”).

D On July 9, 2014, the Gwangju District Court was convicted of the facts charged that “In spite of absence of the intent or ability to pay the construction cost, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff do construction work from August 20, 2008 to September 2010, and caused C to obtain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the amount of the construction cost.”

[The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the same company as C only when the defendant changes his trade name.

arrow