logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.17 2017가합100784
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant’s Intervenor joining the construction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for “infrastructure and soil construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”)” (hereinafter “instant contract”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”) and subcontracted the instant construction works to the Defendant during the construction period from July 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 (i.e., the construction amount of KRW 1,610,000,000 (=2,300,000 cubic meters x 70,000 cubic meters x value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The details of the instant subcontract are as follows.

9. Payment method: Cash payment as of the end of each month after the end of the following month / separate VAT payment (for progress payment for each month, 5% reserves) may be extended by 30 days, depending on the on-site circumstances.

Provided, That only the price for powders, equipment and oil shall be paid.

11.The final quantity after the completion of construction of paragraph 3 of this Article shall be settled. 4) regardless of the type of blasting, 2,300 won per cubic metres.

(A) The Plaintiff agreed to conclude the instant contract as of July 11, 2016 between the Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor, who is the contractor of the instant contract, on July 13, 2016, and agreed to pay KRW 1,033,094,924, out of the price of other construction works under the instant contract, to the Plaintiff by July 15, 2016. The Defendant’s Intervenor, by July 15, 2016, agreed to pay KRW 1,03,094,924, not paid out of the price of other construction works under the instant contract to the Plaintiff by July 15, 2016.

2. On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,033,094,924 from the Defendant’s Intervenor on July 15, 2016, that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant’s Intervenor.” On the other hand, the Plaintiff received work instructions and subcontracts.

arrow