logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나1528
공사대금
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. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment under paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even in accordance with the instant direct payment agreement, the Defendant is liable for the direct payment of the details of the completed work performed by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff performed the construction work corresponding to the construction cost to be claimed by the Plaintiff by the instant lawsuit. Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 6-1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not perform the subcontracted construction work. Thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff. 2) For the foregoing reason, the contractor’s request for the suspension of direct payment was justifiable, and therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff.

B. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff, who was awarded a contract for the new construction of a church from the Defendant, received a subcontract price from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff sought a payment for the subcontract price. However, in the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment for the completion of construction works did not specifically dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment for the completion of construction works, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff submitted necessary evidence, and in fact, did not recognize that the Plaintiff completed the subcontracted construction works.

In this regard, the new church construction itself was completed, and the completion of the subcontracted construction work is the premise for the completion of the new church construction work.

arrow