logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.03.11 2014가합667
공사대금
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 June 25, 2010, the Defendant, Hando Construction Co., Ltd., and Seomun Construction Co., Ltd. concluded a contract for construction work with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation for the “project creation work for accommodation facilities (stage 1) for the EXPO 2012 EXPO 2012 EXPO 14,169,79,100, and construction period from June 28, 2010 to December 27, 2012.

B. On October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with each of the instant joint contractors (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant subcontract”) with the contract amount of KRW 1.311 billion for waterworks and sewerage construction (including value-added tax), the contract amount of KRW 1.64423 million for reinforced concrete construction, and each of the construction periods from October 22, 2010 to December 27, 2012 for each of the construction periods (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant subcontracted construction,” and each of the said subcontracts is referred to as “each of the instant subcontract”).

C. The Plaintiff delayed the process of each of the subcontracted projects in this case, and accordingly, several countermeasures have been held with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and on January 11, 2012, the “Agreement on the Implementation of the Subcontract System only” was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The Defendant terminated each of the instant subcontract on March 16, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s continued delay in the process, and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s progress was unfair.

At the time of the termination of each of the subcontracted works in this case, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,767,941,035 in total, including KRW 568,892,650, and KRW 1,199,048,385, as the construction cost of reinforced concrete, from the Defendant as the construction cost of water supply and sewerage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case.

arrow