(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2017.09.21 2015가단34884

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2017.09.21 2015가단34884

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,253,638 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from February 20, 2015 to September 21, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff (former Company C) entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant (former Company D) as follows.

(3) Contract amount: 123,543,00 won (including value-added tax) shall be included in the contract amount.

B. On January 26, 2015, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of waiver of the construction work under the instant subcontract agreement (hereinafter “instant subcontract construction work”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) The obligation to return an advance payment that is received under a contract for construction works does not normally mean that it is paid in relation to a specific period of maturity, but is part of the construction cost that is paid in relation to the entire construction works. In the event that a contractor cancels or terminates a contract after the payment of an advance payment, the unpaid amount of the construction cost, which is equivalent to the advance payment, shall be naturally appropriated for the advance payment, and if the contract price remains, the contractor shall be liable to pay only that amount. On the other hand, if the advance payment is appropriated for the unpaid construction cost and is remaining, the contractor shall be liable to return the remainder of the advance payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da11574, Jan. 26, 2015). It is reasonable to deem that the contract in this case was rescinded since the Plaintiff also demanded the Defendant to settle the construction cost.

The defendant is obligated to return the remainder after being appropriated for the unpaid construction cost to the plaintiff.

B. The lower limit of this case is as follows.

참조판례

-대법원 2017. 1. 12. 선고 2014다11574, 11581 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.09.09 2019나30305

-창원지방법원 2018.10.25 2017나58332

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.11.28 2018나669

-수원지방법원 2019.04.10 2018가합26140

-대전고등법원 2019.10.16 2019나10987