logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.23 2015가단107515
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 31,407.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with Onnuri Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “heat Solar Energy”) to install solar structures on the 300 to 4,50 households in Yangju-si. The construction amount was determined as KRW 148,50,000 (the supply price = KRW 135,000 (450,000 x 300) per household x value 13,500,000 (the supply price).

B. On March 13, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract for the supply of solar-powered facilities structures and their accessories with the purport of delivering all of the Onnuri solar energy, solar-powered facilities structures, and related parts to KRW 400,000 per unit.

C. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant entered into a standard contract for the construction of solar structures (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff, setting the construction period from May 9, 2015 to May 30, 2015, with the terms of 300,000 won per household per 300,000 households among 300 households that the Defendant was contracted from Onnuri Energy.

At the time of concluding the instant contract, the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the down payment.

E. However, the Plaintiff’s primary construction of five households, where the defect and defective construction occurred, ordered the Plaintiff to perform work, such as revised construction, on several occasions. However, the Plaintiff received orders on May 13, 2015 when the Plaintiff did not respond thereto, and the Plaintiff’s employees were re-invested at the construction site, but the work was also suspended on May 17, 2015.

F. On May 27, 2015, Onnuri solar energy notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract for the installation of solar structures and the supply contract for solar-powered facilities to the 100 households subcontracted by the Plaintiff in order to reduce business losses due to the delay of construction due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral on-site steel flow.

【Ground of recognition】 dispute.

arrow