logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.02.04 2014가단12210
양수금
Text

1. The defendant is about the new construction work of the B neighborhood living facilities in Sacheon City from the development of the DNA industry.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Korea Industrial Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Industrial Construction Co., Ltd.”) agreed on July 26, 2012 to receive KRW 90,00,000 as the construction cost related to the construction of a new neighborhood living facility with the Defendant on July 26, 2012. On March 10, 2014, the claim amounting to KRW 26,647,570 out of the construction cost was transferred to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the said assignment of claim was notified to the Defendant, and the Defendant was issued the said notification to the Defendant thereafter, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount of KRW 26,647,570, and delay damages

2. The defendant's defense against the defendant is a simultaneous performance defense that the non-party company has a duty to pay the construction price at the same time with the payment of the defect warranty against the above construction work. In full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 3, the non-party company agreed on July 26, 2012 to receive the construction price of KRW 90,00,000 from the defendant, and agreed on July 26, 2012 to confirm the construction site and to complete the confirmation of the owner and the submission of the defect warranty. Thus, the non-party company has a duty to submit the defect warranty warranty to the defendant, and this is a simultaneous performance guarantee relationship with the defendant's duty to pay

3. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay 26,647,570 won to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the defect warranty for the above construction work by the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow