(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나13803

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) 대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나13803

공사대금

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) decided the construction period from February 19, 2013 to December 31, 2013; and (b) subcontracted the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 897 million to the Plaintiff, setting the construction cost of KRW 80 million from February 19, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

(hereinafter “the instant construction contract”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry No. 1 (including various numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In order to perform the Plaintiff’s facility construction, the Plaintiff set up a twit file (referring to twits set up as steel boards to prevent water and soil, etc. in the construction work of the instant construction work) at the site of the instant construction work. At the time of the instant construction contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to set the construction cost on the basis that the said twit file remains maintained for eight months, and to settle the excess amount if it exceeds this.

While carrying out the instant construction, the Plaintiff leased and used the file from A and NISethyl for about 10 months.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 65,035,158 won to the plaintiff for expenses corresponding to the part that the plaintiff used the file for more than eight months.

B. The Defendant did not have agreed on the period of use of the prote file for eight months, and the instant construction works completed all within the construction period stipulated in the instant construction contract, and thus did not incur excess of the prote file usage fees.

Even if the period of use of the prote file was eight months,

However, since the file work ends on July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was only able to dismantle the file from that time, but did not do so.

In addition, the part that differs from the construction contract during the construction project of this case should have been changed in advance and increased the price. The plaintiff did not request any change.

3. Determination

(a) A, as well as witness of the trial court, written evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and evidence Nos. 1.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.08.13 2015가단1886

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.24 2014가합6320

-서울동부지방법원 2014.07.09 2013가합16624

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.12.22 2019가단6605

-인천지방법원 2016.09.23 2014가합7359