logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.21 2017가합31272
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s confirmation of the Defendant’s obligation for construction price payment (No. 2014Gahap864) against the Plaintiffs is based on the conciliation protocol.

Reasons

Basic facts: (a) Around 2013, the Plaintiffs, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter collectively referred to as “owners”) delegated K with the work of construction works on the ground-based building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”) such as the J, etc. of the PP, P, etc. of the P, P, P, etc.

K on May 7, 2013, on behalf of the owner, concluded a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to contract the instant construction work.

D Around that time, it entered into a contract with E and the retaining wall construction among the instant construction.

Around the end of 2013, D and D have discontinued the instant construction, and E exercised the lien on the instant building from around that time.

On January 29, 2014, the owner of a building filed a lawsuit against D for the confirmation, etc. of the obligation for construction price, etc. by this Court No. 2014Gahap864, and on October 28, 2014, conciliation including the following was concluded between the owner and D.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”; and 1. The owner shall jointly and severally pay D 24,478,000 won (including value-added tax) to D on November 30, 2014, in addition to delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, the owner shall pay D 224,478,000 won (including value-added tax).

2. The owner and D shall confirm that all bonds and debts arising from the instant construction are liquidated and there is no bonds and debts between the owner and D with the payment of the said money.

E filed a lawsuit for the claim for construction price against D on March 26, 2014 by the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2014Gahap2265, and on December 5, 2014, the same court rendered a judgment that partially accepted E’s claim.

Accordingly, E appealed Seoul High Court 2015Na2555, and on November 17, 2015 between E and D.

arrow