(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2015.07.22 2014가단2632

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2015.07.22 2014가단2632

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells containers.

B. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, the owner of the building, setting the construction cost of KRW 75,000,000 as the construction cost, October 1, 2013 on the date of commencement, and November 1, 2013 on the date of completion as the date of completion, with respect to the construction of housing located in the Seongdong-gun-gun District (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On December 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work. D.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 75,000,000 under the instant contract.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was constructed as follows with higher products than the original product upon the Defendant’s request, and the difference arising therefrom is 8,116,740 won in total. The difference between the actual construction amount of the material name and the actual construction amount is 3,981,440 won in non-high-priced brick 3,962,880 won in 1,981,440 won in 1,981,440 won in 4,335,300 won in 8,670 won in 8,670,635,300 won in 4,300 won in 4,115,000 won in 4,115,000 won in 1,80,000 won in 8,116,740 won in 1,000 won in 1,000 won in 20 additional stairs and expenses were not included in the construction work of this case.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16,116,740 (i.e., KRW 8,16,740,000) and damages for delay. (ii) Determination on the difference arising from the use of upper-tier products is insufficient to recognize that the materials submitted by the Plaintiff were constructed as upper-tier products upon the Defendant’s request, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2. The witness B's testimony is visible to the health unit, Gap evidence No. 4 with respect to the part of other days.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2013.12.18 2013가합1952

-광주지방법원 2014.02.14 2011가단68444

-부산지방법원 2019.12.10 2019가단325243

-대구지방법원 2016.11.04 2015가단111829

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.31 2016고단8015