(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.24 2014나7730

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.24 2014나7730

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff subcontracted the interior work from the Defendant “F” chain store to October 201, 201, and had the construction work executed from October 201 to October 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). The Plaintiff submitted a written estimate (a) to the Defendant (a written estimate (the Plaintiff asserts the details of the payment and written estimate) to the Defendant, and the construction was conducted in accordance with the said estimate. The total construction cost according to the said estimate is KRW 243,158,00,000, which was not paid KRW 63,78,000 among them.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 63,788,00 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. However, it is difficult to acknowledge the facts that the price for the instant construction project was 243,158,000, solely on the basis of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of H of the witness of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the case, and there is no

(A) No. 2 is a written claim unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff after the completion of the construction project, and cannot be deemed a written estimate for the construction project of this case).

Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and witness I of the trial of the party, the Corporation of this case, after the plaintiff performed construction work under its own responsibility, submitted a written estimate and a written request to the defendant to settle the construction cost. As above, in the course of settling the accounts, part of the construction cost claimed by the plaintiff was adjusted, and considering the deducted amount, the defendant can find the fact that the payment of all the construction cost of this case was already made.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나3494

-광주지방법원 2019.07.17 2018가단508507

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.13 2015가단147323

-광주지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나1815

-서울북부지방법원 2015.06.16 2014나6839