(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.01.10 2017가합5002

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.01.10 2017가합5002

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The Defendant subcontracted the instant land to the Plaintiff among C Construction Works contracted by Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”)

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 335,395,464, and delay damages therefrom, excluding KRW 578,462,470 paid by the Defendant, out of KRW 913,857,934.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant soil works. The Defendant directly leased heavy equipment to the Plaintiff and paid the price for the instant soil works. 2) Even if there was a subcontract agreement on the instant soil works between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the construction cost as the basis for the instant soil works claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive, and KRW 683,318,281 paid by the Defendant exceeds the price based on the actual construction volume.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the respective statements (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 10, and 12 as well as the entire purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the subcontract agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant soil work solely with the statements, witness D, and E, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot recognize the fact that the subcontract agreement on the instant sub-construction was concluded, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this premise is without merit.

There is no subcontract agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant sub-construction.

B. The Defendant concluded a construction machinery rental agreement with individual construction machinery business operators, and accordingly, paid equipment rent to each construction machinery business operator.

If the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant Saturday from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s name and cost.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.07.12 2017가합5631

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.11 2017가단5199706

-부산지방법원 2017.07.19 2016가합43899

-대법원 2016.4.15.선고 2013다33683 판결

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.03.17 2015가합205648