logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나13216
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. If evidence Nos. 1-5 and evidence Nos. 1-5 and 9-14 (including provisional numbers) are added to the respective statements and images, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness C of the first instance trial, the Defendant, around 2017, awarded a contract for construction of the DNA building at Jeju, and C, which was delegated by E at the site manager of the said construction, awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for the painting construction of the said DNA building (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the cost of KRW 27 million on October 2017, 2017; the Plaintiff issued an electronic invoice of KRW 15 million against the Defendant on October 24, 2017; and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 3, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day after the completion date of construction for the construction cost of KRW 27 million and the day after the original copy of the instant payment order is served.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the construction of this case was contracted by the owner and the defendant did not know C or the plaintiff.

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, since C (E created a title of the Defendant’s “management director”) delegated by E at the site of the Defendant’s head office, it is recognized that the Plaintiff contracted the instant construction work, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the instant construction contract is the Defendant.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult in view of the fact that the construction cost of the instant case was KRW 20 million, but the existing drone was changed to the tin (agent) and the size of painting decreased, but the construction cost increased to KRW 27 million, etc.

According to the above evidence, the construction cost of this case has increased from KRW 20 million to KRW 27 million, and the right side of the construction work of this case.

arrow