logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.07.06 2015가합1400
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On February 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff at KRW 4,478,100,000 for the construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction of the instant construction of the Jindo-gun, Chungcheongnam-do-do-gun, Chungcheongnam-do-do-gun, and the instant construction work.

B. With respect to the construction cost of the instant case, a collection order, a provisional seizure order, a assignment of claims, and a notification of seizure was served to the Defendant as indicated below (attached Table 1).

On January 2, 2015, Daejeon District Court Decision 20,820,820,000 on January 14, 2015, on the transfer of part of the claim to A (wages) on January 12, 2015, 20, 20,820,838 on January 14, 200, 200, 200, 2014Kadan1428, 200, 18, 200, 205, 18, 200, 205, 208, 205, 30, 205, 205, 208, 205, 205, 205, 206, 205, 205, 205, 206, 205, 205, 205, 205, 2016, 205, 206, 36, 25, 206, 25, 16,

C. On February 5, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 134,465,982 to A, who is the wage obligee of the instant construction project, and ② on March 3, 2015, deposited KRW 51,146,933 by treating the deposited person as the Plaintiff, the assignee of the credit, or the designated party A (excluding A and 10 persons) pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act as Article 1021 of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015 and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 20 through 27, Eul evidence No. 29-1, and the plaintiff's assertion that the construction work of this case was contracted out by the defendant, and the construction work price of this case is as set forth below [Attachment 2].

arrow