(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.12.19 2018가단335489

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) 부산지방법원 2019.12.19 2018가단335489

공사대금 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2018, the Plaintiff prepared an entrustment contract with the Defendant for waste collection, transportation, and disposal (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the content that the Defendant received a contract from C (hereinafter “C”) for the transportation of the waste treatment service (hereinafter “instant service”) during the DP removal work of DP factory, the transportation cost of which is KRW 50,000 per ton, the disposal cost of KRW 550,000 per ton, and the contract period of which is determined from June 11, 2018 to November 28, 2018 (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 108,430,470,00 in total, including KRW 29,00,000 on July 28, 2018 from E, and KRW 35,00,000 on September 4, 2018 from the Defendant, and KRW 44,430,470 on September 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. A. Around June 2018, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant. From that time to September 2018, the Plaintiff performed waste disposal services equivalent to a total of KRW 207,479,800, but only received only KRW 108,430,470 from the Defendant, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 9,049,330.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 99,049,330 won and damages for delay due to the service payment.

B. The Defendant awarded a contract from the Defendant C for the removal of D Busan Factory, subcontracted the waste disposal services to E, and the Defendant re-subcontracted this to the Plaintiff.

The service contract of this case was prepared by the plaintiff only for the purpose of confirming that the first waste discharger is the defendant, and since the service price was agreed upon by the plaintiff to be paid from E, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the service price of this case to the plaintiff.

3. We examine the judgment, the fact that the service contract of this case was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단217126

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.08.18 2017가단1610

-대구지방법원 2019.01.25 2016가합205735

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.19 2018가합553620

-광주고등법원 2020.10.30 2019누12691