(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.11.22 2017나62938

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) 부산지방법원 2019.11.22 2017나62938

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. The parties' assertion

A. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was contracted by the Defendant from the Defendant during the construction period of KRW 38,830,00,00 for construction cost including value-added tax, and from April 24, 2017 to May 14, 2017, the term “the instant construction work”).

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction on May 14, 2017, and completed an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 8,732,900 at the Defendant’s request (hereinafter “instant additional construction work”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 17,562,90,00 after deducting KRW 30,000 which was already paid from the total of KRW 47,562,90,00 for the instant construction and additional construction costs, and damages for delay.

B. (A) As to the construction cost of this case, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to install a shampoo and shampoo which can be used by the former owner. However, since the Plaintiff installed a shampoo and shampoo in which it is inevitable to install a warehouse connected with the shampoo and shampoo in which the former owner could not use the latter, the Plaintiff cannot claim construction cost for the shampoo and shampoo in the construction cost of this case. (B) Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the construction area of this case into 62.7 square meters, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the construction cost of this case. (c) The Plaintiff did not have any value-added tax on the ground that the Plaintiff would not receive value-added tax instead of filing a tax return. (2) The part claimed by the Plaintiff as additional construction is included in the scope of the original construction work of this case, which was contracted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and part of the error is merely reconstruction or repair.

3. Claim for the deduction of the defect repair amount is due to the construction of this case.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.11.03 2016나60750

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.12.29 2014가합2740

-인천지방법원 2018.07.18 2017나60737

-광주지방법원장흥지원 2016.11.16 2015가단1186

-부산지방법원 2020.07.22 2019나4868