logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단12021
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 10, 2012 and March 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received from the Incorporated Foundation B a supply of and demand for the interior and air-proof room construction works in Seoul CD on two occasions; and (b) subcontracted the Plaintiff’s mid-to-date construction work (hereinafter “B-related construction work”).

In around 2013, the Defendant contracted the remodeling project for the company’s business houses from E (hereinafter “E”) and subcontracted the company’s mid-to-date (hereinafter “E-related construction”) to KRW 82,00,000 of the construction cost (including value-added tax) and paid the Plaintiff the total construction cost of KRW 99,770,000 over four occasions as follows.

November 19, 2013: 36,080,000 won

(b) December 24, 2013: 36,080,000 won;

(c) January 28, 2014: 18,040,000 won;

(d) June 30, 2014: 9,570,000 won (based on recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs B (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings);

2. Determination

A. As to the claim for construction price for B-related construction works, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) while performing the relevant construction works, the Plaintiff was not paid the remainder of KRW 6,645,00,000 among the total construction cost of KRW 24,579,00,000, despite the completion of all of the construction works on December 2, 2013, while performing both underground parking lot painting construction, interior interior interior interior interior interior painting of second-class performance halls; and (b) galloning construction works.

However, in order to recognize the obligation to pay the additional construction cost to the contractor, there is a separate agreement between the contractor and the contractor on the execution of the additional construction and the payment of the additional construction cost. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a separate agreement to implement the additional construction work and to receive the additional construction cost exceeding KRW 17,934,00, which is the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff and the Defendant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. This part of the construction cost is due to domestic affairs.

arrow