logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.25 2016나2007232
공사대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Recognized facts and

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is as follows. The court's explanation on this part is based on the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., evidence additionally submitted at the trial and insufficient to reverse the fact of the subcontract consideration payment agreement, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for dismissal, deletion, or addition as follows.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court: (a) stated "No. 30, April 30, 2014" as "No. 30, March 30, 2014; (b) No. 3-7-8, and 10; and (c) stated "before amendment by Act No. 12709, May 8, 2014; (c)" as "before amendment by Act No. 12709, Nov. 29, 2014; and (d) No. 5-1, "No. 5," as "No. 5," and No. 1, 5-2, "No. 1, 2014 (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25495, Jul. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) No. 10, “No. 18-199, Jul. 25, 2014>

In Chapter 5, the Defendant, who is the ordering person, shall be deemed to be the “Intory Engineering, which is the responsible supervisor,” the same behavior “Defendant” shall be deemed to be “Intory Engineering,” respectively, and the “intory Engineering,” shall be added as “in May 20, 2014,” and the “intory Engineering,” shall be added at the end of the 14th phase of the same page as “in the event that the obligation to issue a subcontract payment guarantee certificate as prescribed in Article 26(2)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is exempted, there is no reason to attach a direct written consent to the notification of subcontract.”

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion that A paid the subcontract price additionally, the Defendant’s assertion that A paid KRW 215,30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014, including the payment of KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff determined that A paid KRW 50,000,000 from April 10, 2014, and KRW 10,000,000 on April 22, 2014, and KRW 30,000,000 on April 29, 2014.

arrow