logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가합102188
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed the name of D, which operates a structure manufacturer on the trade name “C,” and concluded a contract with the Defendant by setting a price of KRW 30,096,00 (including value-added tax) for the production of the 4 lines Walking Berame.

(hereinafter “instant First Contract”). B.

On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a verbal contract (including value-added tax) with the price of 259,600,000 won for the production of scco 4 lines and the scco 59,600,000 column of the Indonesia (hereinafter “instant contract”). On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the contract for the instant contract with the Defendant after completing business registration with the trade name “E” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to enter into a contract with the amount of KRW 192,280,000 (including value-added tax) for the production of goods at the heating of a factory instead of the F Changju factory.

(hereinafter “instant third contract”). D.

On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to set the price per ton of 460,000 won per ton of Deked Factory (value-added Tax Separate) and to settle the price according to the actual quantity after drawing production.

(hereinafter “this case’s 4 contract”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s 1 through 5, and evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 201 to November 11, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim for additional work costs, etc. was made between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the price for the additional work in relation to the instant contract. As to KRW 49,703,00, the Defendant calculated the amount and claimed by the Plaintiff, up to November 20, 2012, the Defendant settled down the amount and agreed on the amount until November 20, 2012, and as to the price for the production of Poter Cool Pip in the Sco 4 UPke and indonesia, the amount of the Plaintiff’s amount.

arrow