logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
광주지방법원순천지원 2012.09.26 2012가단7131
공사대금 및 임금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. On February 15, 2008, the Defendant purchased the previous 2,377 square meters of land in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and on October 30, 2008, the daily price of the above real estate was designated as a tourism resources development project district (one-person happy village) from Jeonnam-do. On October 30, 2008, the said project district became final and conclusive as a person eligible for support for Hannam-do, the Defendant had to provide subsidies (one million won of Do expenses, one million won of Gun expenses, and ten million won of Gun expenses) free of charge.

B. On September 8, 2010, the Defendant is unable to newly construct Korean-style houses with a resident registration in Seoul with a subsidy granted under the Defendant’s name. The Defendant finally divided the said real estate into 451 square meters in the name of the Defendant and 451 square meters in the name of the Defendant, and 19 square meters in the name of the Gu-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and 450 square meters in the previous Do-gun, E, 450 square meters in the size, 457 square meters in the size before F, 457 square meters in the size before G, and 450 square meters in the name of Hannam-gun, etc., and after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the said I, the Defendant received subsidies of KRW 120 million in the name of Han-style, etc.

C. The Defendant: (a) had the Plaintiff construct the Hannam-gun-gun-gun-ro 3, E, F, and H to the Jeonnam-gun-gun 3, and paid KRW 480,80,000 as the construction price.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the construction cost of KRW 20 million agreed to pay to the Plaintiff and KRW 65 million, which was agreed to settle after the completion of the instant hanok construction, as well as damages for delay.

(2) The Plaintiff and Han-ok, the Plaintiff, and Han-ok, agreed to pay the subcontract price in full by concluding a subcontract by designating the contract price as the construction cost, and there was no agreement that they would make the Plaintiff’s employment as the on-site agent and make the completion of construction and settle the construction cost.

B. Determination A.

arrow