logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.11.19 2018나13540
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,004,00 against the Defendant and its related thereto from January 11, 2018 to November 19, 2019.

Reasons

1. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff runs the construction business in the name of “C”. The Plaintiff requested from the Defendant that the Defendant install an advertising board of outer walls on the building owned by the Defendant, the construction of the ceiling of the first floor parking lot, and the construction of steel scrap around the outside tesen (hereinafter “instant construction”), and at the time of the request for the said construction, the materials necessary for the instant construction were supplied by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with the Defendant for a total of KRW 620,000 per day labor cost of KRW 620,000 (Plaintiffs 300,000, KRW 200,000 per air craft, KRW 120,00 per air craft, and KRW 120,00 per air craft) and completed all of the instant construction works from December 13, 2017 to December 14, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the cost of KRW 1,414,00 for the instant construction (i.e., labor cost of KRW 620,000 for the first day, labor cost of KRW 420,000 for the second day, labor cost of KRW 74,00 for the materials cost of KRW 74,000 for the Defendant’s request, and damages for delay.

2. In full view of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that a contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant for requesting construction as to the instant construction project as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff completed the instant construction project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction contract was concluded verbally with respect to the instant construction. However, there is insufficient evidence to specify what is the exact scope of the instant construction project, whether the payment of the instant construction is the method of paying daily personnel expenses, or the method of paying the price according to the completion of the construction. 2) As a matter of course, the content of the instant construction is the installation of a building outer wall board, the installation of a building outer wall parking tent, the installation of a first floor parking lot tent, and the external interior decoration.

arrow