logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.19 2017나12977
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a business supplying oil in the trade name of “E,” and the Defendant changed the trade name from “limited liability company C” to “D” on February 9, 2015, and changed the trade name to the current trade name on September 7, 2016.

B. The Defendant, along with F Co., Ltd., was awarded a contract with F Co., Ltd. for the construction of the “G Improvement Project” in the Jeonjin-gu and Ysan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a clean water business place at the early night around the beginning of 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Defendant, without directly performing the contracted construction work, did not directly perform the said construction work, deducted 15% of the total construction cost received between H as the so-called “construction installment,” and ordered H to make a lump sum subcontract for the entire construction work. However, in order to avoid relevant provisions, H registered as the Defendant’s on-site agent, and had H perform the instant construction work.

C. From March 2013 to January 2015, the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 166,861,728 in total to the equipment, vehicles, etc. used at the instant construction site. From July 2, 2013 to December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was paid by the Defendant totaling KRW 137,713,915.

The construction cost based on the blanket subcontract remains in dispute status without settling the accounts between the defendant and H.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, Eul's evidence of subparagraph 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness H and I's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of oil at the instant construction site (hereinafter “instant oil supply contract”) and accordingly, supplied oil at the instant construction site. The unpaid oil payment is KRW 29,147,813 (=16,861,728 - 137,713,915). Thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned contract is the Defendant.

arrow