logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.28 2014가합5808
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff Company is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling food, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

The purpose of the building business is the Defendant C, who had worked as the vice president of the Plaintiff Company from March 1, 2013 to December 24, 2013, and was the head of the food processing plant construction site under the Plaintiff Company. 2) The Plaintiff Company newly built a food processing plant for rapid freezing in 2013.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant Company submitted to the Plaintiff Company a written estimate of KRW 9.49 billion (hereinafter referred to as “written estimate of March 29, 2013”) of the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as “written estimate of March 29, 2013”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”) to the Plaintiff Company for the construction of the instant processing plant (hereinafter referred to as “instant factory”), 9.5 billion construction cost, and construction period, from May 2, 2013 to December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff Company entered into a contract for the construction of the instant construction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction contract”) with the Plaintiff Company for the additional equipment of KRW 2,00,000 from May 2, 2013 to December 1, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “written estimate of KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000).

B. (B) The Plaintiff Company requested the Defendant Company to modify the design of the steel frame, outer wall board, and Captain, among the instant construction works, and accordingly the content of the instant construction works was modified.

On October 31, 2013, the Defendant Company demanded that the Plaintiff Company enter into a modified contract reflecting the above modified contents. On November 5, 2013, the Defendant Company confirmed the modification of the design and demanded the payment cycle of the unpaid construction cost. On December 9, 2013, the change was made to the Plaintiff Company as above.

arrow