(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단12669

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) 울산지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단12669

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract that, with regard to the development of the factory site, both D and 11 parcels of land owned by the Defendant, the construction cost of KRW 992,200,000 and the payment of the price for the construction work shall be paid monthly according to the construction progress.

However, according to the defendant's demand, construction work equivalent to 8% of the total progress rate from February 2, 2016 to July 7, 2016, which is prior to the preparation of the contract. The construction cost is KRW 79,376,000.

However, since the Defendant did not pay the above construction cost, the Plaintiff terminates the construction contract as the delivery of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the 79,376,000 won for the contract price and the delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the construction cost with the Defendant on the premise that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the written contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not submitted as evidence (the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not put the written contract for the construction work but did not affix the seals thereto). The written claim for the construction cost (Evidence A2) is merely the fact that the Plaintiff unilaterally requested the Defendant to pay the construction cost to the Defendant. In light of the witness E’s testimony, the evidence No. 4, No. 9, and No. 10 are merely deemed to have promised payment to the Plaintiff in the process of performing the restoration work for the factory site between E and the Plaintiff, regardless of the Defendant’s intent.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there had been a contract for construction work between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction work premised on the existence of a contract for construction work between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단201088

-수원지방법원 2015.07.21 2015가단4531

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가합526283

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.06.07 2016가단4573

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.10.14 2014가단3029