(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.11.27 2015가단5354

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.11.27 2015가단5354

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 15, 2013, Defendant B and Defendant B, the owner of the building, entered into a contract for construction of metal, windows, and glass construction (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) among the new construction works of urban-type residential housing (hereinafter “instant housing”). Defendant C, as the head of the site office, guaranteed the payment of the instant construction contract. Accordingly, Defendant B, as the primary debtor, is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff as KRW 31,00,000,000, and delay damages therefrom.

As to this, Defendant B ordered Defendant C to make a contract for the instant new housing construction work by the so-called internship, and Defendant C entered into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, and Defendant B did not have any fact of concluding the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff.

2. The fact that Defendant B paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2013 under the instant construction contract does not conflict between the parties, and according to the video of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff completed the construction work under the instant construction contract.

However, Gap evidence No. 1 (Standard Construction Business Contract) and No. 5 (Written Confirmation) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and they cannot be used as evidence for each evidence. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 11, and each statement in No. 7, 8, and 11, and each financial transaction information was collected from this court and sent to the Savings Bank and the NH Nonghyup Bank to the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant housing construction project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the Plaintiff added the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 13.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.04.01 2015가단10477

-울산지방법원 2016.06.29 2015나1512

-전주지방법원남원지원 2020.03.04 2018가단12033

-수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가합9529