logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.05.02 2016가단31357
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 15,833,670 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from August 12, 2016 to May 2, 2019.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who designs and designs the automatic control system, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs the paper-based manufacturing business, etc.

B. On January 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an electrical construction and trial operation contract for the fourth atmosphere (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on March 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not pay KRW 26,00,000 out of the construction cost stipulated in the contract of this case, and sought payment as the principal lawsuit.

In regard to this, the defendant did not pay KRW 22,50,000 out of the execution price of the contract of this case. However, in relation to the contract of this case, the defendant asserted that the amount that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant is the sum of KRW 62,002,530 (i.e., KRW 49,491,200, KRW 3,300, KRW 211,300, KRW 300, KRW 39,491, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 7,000, KRW 39,50, KRW 530, which is the difference.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 1, 2, and 2-1, 1, 2, and 1, and 2-2, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 192,50,000 as the construction price of the instant contract on March 30, 2014, and the Defendant paid KRW 170,000 to the Plaintiff by July 10, 2015. Thus, the amount payable out of the construction price under the instant contract is recognized as KRW 22,50,000 (i.e., KRW 192,50,000 - KRW 170,000).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the written statements in Nos. 4, B’s evidence 8-1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 through 10, the written estimate submitted by the plaintiff in relation to the contract of this case shall be in the form of the atmosphere, and the written estimate submitted by the plaintiff in relation to the contract of this case shall be in the fourth atmosphere.

arrow