(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2019.05.16 2018가단101787

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) 대구지방법원포항지원 2019.05.16 2018가단101787

공사대금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. On September 2017, D, the husband of the Plaintiff who entered into a construction contract, concluded, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant C and the Defendant Company, the actual owner of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and completed the contract from October 11, 2017 to November 11, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 55,905,875 as material cost, etc., and the Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 50 million as the reduced construction cost to the Plaintiff’s agent D around December 2, 2017.

C. The Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the Defendant Company was actually established around September 2017, and Defendant C, the actual owner of which, concluded an indoor interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract on behalf of the Defendant Company, was obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant C.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants of the indoor interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract asserted that they did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff, and Defendant C entered into an indoor interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract with D only.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the husband D signed the contract with the defendant C on behalf of the plaintiff.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 22 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same) and the purport of the entire pleadings, defendant C PlaintiffD’s trade name, “E,” but was well aware that only the name of the individual businessman was a “Plaintiff” as a result of the business necessity, and thus, the parties to the indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract concluded by the defendant C appears to be “D” rather than the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is a party to the indoor interior interior decoration contract concluded with the defendant C is without merit.

(1) Indoor with Defendant C.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.07.04 2018나10152

-창원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단1413

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.30 2017가단5149671

-광주지방법원 2021.02.09 2020가단530378

-수원지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나24536