logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단54144
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, around November 2015, was awarded a contract from the Defendant for the extension of a F hotel in Seopo-si E (hereinafter “instant extension work”).

B. On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for the installation of machinery and equipment works (hereinafter “instant installation works”) from D during the instant extension works, with the contract price of KRW 1.5 million (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from January 5, 2016 to March 31, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). C.

The Plaintiff completed the instant facility works, and D paid the Plaintiff the total construction cost of KRW 80 million.

On September 7, 2016, the approval for use was made for the instant extension work.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On January 4, 2016, prior to the conclusion of the instant subcontract, the Defendant promised to directly pay the instant subcontract price to G, which is the site manager of C, the Defendant’s land manager, H, and the Plaintiff’s representative director, to I on the meal space together. After obtaining approval for the use of the instant extension work, the Plaintiff’s J director requested the Defendant to directly pay the instant subcontract price on the job with the said H at the time of running the said F hotel, and the Defendant promised to pay the said price directly to D instead of paying the construction price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 35.5 million and the delayed payment damages.

3. We examine the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 9, respectively, are hard to believe in light of the witness H's testimony, and the witness H's testimony alone was approved to use the extended construction of this case before the conclusion of the subcontract of this case or after the completion of the approval to use the extended construction of this case, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant.

arrow