logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단5074552
공사대금반환 등
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

On August 20, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the Defendant setting the construction cost of 82,400,000 won in the construction cost and 45 days from the construction period contract between the Defendant and the second underground floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building.

On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with the Defendant, setting the fire-fighting system installation and additional interior works as KRW 20,500,000.

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entered into a construction contract with Nonparty F by setting the E2 electronic lighting work as KRW 7,480,00. Of the total amount, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,680,000 and the remainder was paid by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff agreed on September 21, 2017 between the original Defendant and the Defendant on September 21, 2017 is the same as the Defendant.

As to each contract for construction (hereinafter “instant contract for construction”) and payment thereof as described in paragraph (1), the following contract was re-established:

1) As of September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff’s total contract amount of KRW 5,680,000 in total is as follows: (i) Rotterdam Corporation 82,40,000,000 for Rotterdam Corporation and Additional Rotterdam Contract 20,500,000 for Rotterdam Corporation and Additional Rotterdam Contract 3) 5,680,000 for Rotterdam Contract 10,000 for 10,000 for 20,000 for 20,000,000 for 3 4,20,000,000 for 5,00,000 for 20,000,000 for 5,000,000 for 5,25,000,000 for 5,000 for 10,000 for 20,000 for 5,000 for 206.

Any balance shall be paid after all construction works are completed.

As the Defendant, on September 26, 2017, prepared the Defendant’s waiver note and transfer note, demanded the Plaintiff to pay the electrical joint construction and the CED reclamation expenses in the studio around September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to waive the instant construction work. The Defendant also demanded the Plaintiff to waive the construction work, and the transfer note, etc., with the following content.

arrow