logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.12 2015나16543
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed from “Dong Ho General Construction Co., Ltd.” on April 16, 2015 to “YY”) concluded a construction contract with the Defendant (including the instant construction contract) with the Defendant on July 25, 2011, stipulating that the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed from “UFD loan of a stock company to “UFCDDD” on March 13, 2015) as the Defendant’s sexual BabaCC Epis and guard room construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) as of July 25, 2011, and as of September 30, 2011, the completion date of the scheduled construction completion date, and as of September 30, 2011, the total construction cost was 254,980,000 won (including value-added tax).

B. After that, on March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an amendment agreement with the Defendant to the effect that the completion date of the instant completion plan was amended on December 31, 2012.

C. Around July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction project, but the construction was suspended without completing the instant construction project on or around December 31, 2012.

On the other hand, on September 201, the Plaintiff, separate from the instant construction project from the Defendant around September 201, awarded a contract with the Defendant for “undeveloped concrete and waterproof construction” for the said golf course (hereinafter “instant additional construction contract”), completed the said construction around that time.

E. The Plaintiff received KRW 187,065,298 (i.e., the total construction cost of KRW 181,170,000 in advance premium of KRW 5,895,298) from the Defendant in relation to the instant construction contract (i.e., value added tax), and (ii) the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 6,200,000 in relation to the instant additional construction contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. On December 31, 2012, the construction work of this case, which was initiated by the Plaintiff in relation to the construction contract of this case as to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, consultation with the Defendant regarding the construction cost.

arrow