(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.11.16 2017가단13609

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) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.11.16 2017가단13609

공사대금 등

Text

1. Defendant C and B shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and the interest rate from June 12, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim for construction price

A. On December 18, 2013, Defendant C is entitled to the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) on the following grounds: (a) Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and four parcels (hereinafter “instant land”).

3) As to the ground multi-household construction corporation (hereinafter “instant new construction”)

(2) On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G, F, an agent of F, to set the construction cost of KRW 89,125,00 (hereinafter “instant interior construction”) as KRW 89,125,00.

B. On June 8, 2014, Defendant D promised to pay the construction price for the interior works of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C guaranteed Defendant D’s obligation to pay the said construction price to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant C and D are jointly and severally liable to pay the total construction cost of KRW 46.5 million and damages for delay.

C. The fact that Defendant D, on February 23, 2015, without dispute between the parties to the judgment, or based on the evidence No. 4, was found to have prepared and issued a written confirmation to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2015 that “it was confirmed that the construction cost of the instant interior works was paid to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D shall delegate the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.”

However, Defendant D agreed that Defendant C and D shall pay the above construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, not a party to the contract for interior construction of this case, on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant C and C agreed to pay the above construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the construction cost and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the construction cost.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the payment was guaranteed, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The parties to the determination of the loan claim do not conflict or set forth in Gap evidence 5.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.11.06 2018나90206

-광주지방법원해남지원 2019.01.29 2017가단20576

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2017가단5054483

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나3964

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.05.17 2018가합69