logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2016.11.17 2015가단8151
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion;

A. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff 1-2 [Attachment A-1 [Attachment C separate, on March 10, 2015, on the date of commencement, on April 2015, 2015, on April 1/1, 2000 of the construction cost per delay delay delay penalty] 330 million won (the construction work shall be KRW 1-2 [Attachment B separate, on the date of commencement, on May 30, 2015, on the date of completion, on the compensation for delay] and the same year].

5.25. Indoor Works 140,000,000 won (the Plaintiff’s seal shall be affixed only);

The separate date of surtax, the date of commencement on May 25, 2015, the date of completion, the column of the date of completion, and the penalty for delay) and the same year.

6. 30. A. 22.1 million won (the specifications for each item of additional construction prepared by the Plaintiff) were contracted for each additional construction; on May 20, 2015, the said interior construction was completed on June 30, 2015; and on July 20, 2015, the said additional construction was completed.

However, the Defendant paid only KRW 450 million among the total construction cost of KRW 58,311 (=530,000,000 won [ KRW 33330,000,000 won 2,210,000 won] 530,000 won additional tax, and did not pay the remainder 13,3110,000 won. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction work and damages for delay pursuant to the Promotion Act after the day following the delivery of the complaint.

B. In the case of the above indoor construction works by the defendant, the fact that the defendant has contracted the above indoor construction works together with the above civil construction works and construction works is recognized, but there is no such agreement on the construction cost, and the additional construction works cannot be recognized as having

There was no fact that A1-1 and 2 additional construction works were to be executed after the review and seal of the owner. Even if the details of A2 are true, it is merely that the Plaintiff arbitrarily modified and executed the design to make up the construction cost.

In addition, many defects have occurred in the inside and outside of a building (27,8,10 / 10 / 10 / 100000,000 won, except for the value-added tax necessary for the repair thereof.

(4) [Written Estimate] also the Plaintiff.

arrow