logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가단31739
공사대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 171,363,200 as well as 5% per annum from May 20, 2016 to August 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a person who operates construction machinery leasing business under the trade name of “C” with the name of “C,” and “D,” and the Defendant is a legal entity that engages in construction and civil engineering business. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff is a business entity that operates construction and civil engineering business. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff is a business entity that leases sckele at the site of the construction site construction work for a factory site of 28,396 square meters at the Gyeongcheon-si, Incheon Special Metropolitan City, where the Defendant was implementing from February 2014 to March 7, 2015

(2) At the construction site of this case, the sum of the royalties for the use of equipment and the construction cost of retaining walls provided by the Plaintiff as above is 421,901,700, and the Defendant paid only KRW 250,537,500 out of the construction cost of this case until May 19, 2016, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 171,364,200.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought a judgment as stated in the purport of the claim. (2) Around October 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost was increased due to the defects in the construction work, or the damage claim due to the delay in the construction work, caused the Plaintiff’s collapse of the reinforced soil in the construction site of this case, and as a result, the Plaintiff dismantled the collapsed part of the collapsed reinforced soil and re-established the collapsed reinforced soil. It is improper to include KRW 45,080,750 in the construction cost of this case, which is cost for the work to re-establish such dismantling work cost and reinforcement soil, and it is unfair to include the Plaintiff’s damage claim in the construction cost of this case. Since the Defendant voluntarily recovered from the amount of money of KRW 40,00,000 due to the Plaintiff’s error in construction work, this offsets the Plaintiff’s damage claim for the construction cost of this case and incurred damages due to the Plaintiff’s delay in construction work and damages due to the Plaintiff’s delay in construction work.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall use their horizontal meters for the instant construction work.

arrow