logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.30 2017가단18730 (1)
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C On August 4, 2016, from the Defendant, it was determined and awarded a contract for retaining walls construction, reinforced concrete construction, wood construction, installation and dismantling of temporary materials among the new construction works of the building on the D ground of Goyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Busan, as the construction cost of KRW 30 million (including value-added tax).

B. On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from C for retaining walls and reinforced concrete construction of this building among the above construction works. At the time, the construction cost of reinforced concrete construction of the building at the time was agreed to pay KRW 150,000 per square meter of the building area, and the cost of retaining wall construction at the same time was paid by settling accounts of wages (220,000 won per per square meter) and equipment cost (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”).

C. From August 9, 2016 to December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff performed the said reinforced concrete construction and retaining wall construction in accordance with the instant subcontract agreement.

As part of the construction cost under the instant subcontract agreement, around September 2016, the Plaintiff received 3.3 million won for retaining wall construction costs and 4.0 million won for retaining wall construction costs from C, and received only 2,500 won from the Defendant from November 11, 2016 to January 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to the head of the Defendant’s construction site E, thereby making it impossible to continue to work under the instant subcontract agreement. Accordingly, E made a phone call to the Defendant and received a promise to pay a direct payment for the construction cost from the Defendant, and C prepared a written statement of direct payment and delivered it to the Defendant on April 11, 2017.

As such, the Defendant promised to directly pay the construction cost under the instant subcontract agreement to the Plaintiff at the latest from October 14, 2016 to April 11, 2017. As such, the Defendant promised to directly pay the construction cost under the instant subcontract agreement to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is only 4,617 million won for the unpaid construction cost under the instant subcontract agreement.

arrow