logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2016.11.11 2015가합804
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to increase the construction cost to KRW 2,160,000,000 in consideration of the Plaintiff’s initial fund while carrying out the construction work and the risk of initial capital inputs, in the process of discussing that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction work for KRW 1,945,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff to execute the instant construction work in the amount of KRW 2,160,000,000.

C. Meanwhile, the instant construction project is a construction project that can be executed only with a comprehensive construction business license, and the Plaintiff did not hold a comprehensive construction business license.

Accordingly, on July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to perform the instant construction work under the name of the ASEAN Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AD”). On July 30, 2014, a written contract was concluded between the Defendants and the ASEAN Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. for the instant construction work from July 30, 2014 to January 30, 2015, and the construction cost of KRW 2,139,500,000.

On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200,000,00 to the Defendants with the initial funds necessary for the instant construction project, and thereafter, on the security therefor, on July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20,00,00 to the Defendants, and registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the mortgagee F, his father.

E. The Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction work to G in KRW 1,800,000,00 for the subcontracted construction work. Since G did not hold a comprehensive construction business license, the Plaintiff externally performed the construction work as if it performed the instant construction work. The Defendants also paid the construction work with the passbook in the name of Bando Construction.

arrow