logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.14 2018가단23588
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 150,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 17, 2019 to November 14, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds for the claim against the defendant C are as shown in the attached Form.

As the judgment by the deemed-founded confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on Partial Dismissals (Presidential Decree No. 29768) was promulgated on May 21, 2019 and enforced from June 1, 2019, the part demanding damages for delay exceeding 12% per annum from June 1, 2019 to the date of full payment is rejected.

The plaintiff's assertion on the defendant B (hereinafter the defendant company) and D as stated in the grounds of the claim in the attached Form. In addition, the defendant company stated that the defendant company should grant the right of representation to the defendant C, or that it should grant the right of representation to the plaintiff to the defendant C, and thus the defendant company is liable for the legal act done by the defendant C under the construction contract, in accordance with Article 125 of the Civil Code.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that on October 27, 2017, the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff when concluding an agreement on the termination of a contract for construction work with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff paid only KRW 10 million among them, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay the remaining KRW 40 million.

Judgment

First, as to whether Defendant Company and D obtained loans from Plaintiff 143,00,000 won, and whether the market price of Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff is 150,000,000 won or not, it is not sufficient to recognize this only by the statement of health room and evidence of evidence No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, with respect to whether the defendant company granted the power of representation to the defendant C or marked the plaintiff to grant the power of representation to the defendant C, each of the items of health class, the evidence Nos. 5 and 7 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

the purport of the whole pleadings is to be made in each entry of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5.

arrow