(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.02.08 2016가단50623

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.02.08 2016가단50623

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant for the construction of a new neighborhood living facility on land (hereinafter “instant construction”) on a plot of land outside C in the East Sea (including both civil and civil construction cost of KRW 12 million and value added tax).

B. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff started construction and completed the instant construction work around October 2015.

C. The defendant 2015

5. From March 31 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 204,062,530 as the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination: (a) upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff purchased the materials of KRW 72,440,000 using the Defendant’s credit card to purchase the materials of KRW 72,00,00 on the ground that: (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,550,000 for the reconstruction equipment unit of the retaining wall on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2,00,000 for the supervision cost of the construction work for the main extension on October 12, 2015; and (d) the instant construction cost was decided not to pay value-added tax on the ground that the Defendant did not pay in cash; (c) the Plaintiff purchased the materials of KRW 72,200,000 using the Defendant’s credit card; and thereafter, (d) the Defendant thereafter deducted the Plaintiff from the construction cost to pay KRW 7,200,000,000 for the value-added tax added to the said materials.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, which seems to correspond to the plaintiff's above assertion, was unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, and it is difficult to believe it as it is, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed to pay the additional construction cost to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence

Rather, the Defendant.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.01.09 2017나30399

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.09.03 2013가단12675

-제주지방법원 2020.01.08 2019나10569

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.06.20 2017가단9253