(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.05.19 2016나912 | 리걸엔진

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) 인천지방법원 2016.05.19 2016나912

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The claim for the preliminary claim added in the trial shall be dismissed; and

3...

Reasons

1. As to the claim for the payment of the primary construction cost

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the construction of the new construction of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Community Housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) was completed by receiving a contract from the Defendant and completing the construction work, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 15,656,300 (including value-added tax) and the damages for delay thereof. (2) The Defendant merely contracted the instant construction to Defendant D, and no contract is concluded with the Plaintiff.

After receiving a contract for the instant work from D, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim against the Defendant as the Plaintiff did not receive the price.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff written a written estimate for the instant other work, stating the payee as “to return to the owner of the C project,” and signed and sealed D’s seal. 2) On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a written execution confirmation that the instant other work was completed, and the confirmation person is written as “E-D,” and the seal affixed thereon.

3) The Plaintiff holds the power of attorney to delegate part of the work related to the instant project to D. Accordingly, the delegated work is limited to “act related to negotiations, etc. with the Gu office and residents in relation to new construction works, act related to design changes, act related to the submission and receipt of documents in relation to the installation and management of electric measuring instruments and water meters,” and does not include work related to the contract of the instant works. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of evidence A No. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

C. The judgment is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant contracted the instant work to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.

2. As to the action on the conjunctive obligee’s subrogation.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나50805

-서울서부지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가단204483

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.18 2014가합53551

-서울북부지방법원 2014.08.26 2013가단34201

-인천지방법원 2016.12.23 2015가단32195