logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.09 2018나2049575
공사대금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, at Ansan City D and one parcel No. 1 (B/L subcontract form for construction business), is “D and 13 parcels,” but according to the evidence No. 9 (Building Register), etc., the Defendant appears to have changed the parcel number thereafter to have “D and one parcel, other than B/L,” following the change of the parcel number.

A project owner who newly built a wedding hall E on the ground (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”) and was awarded each contract on April 23, 2015 with the contract amount of KRW 4,290,000,000 (including value-added tax), monthly payment of completed portion (100% in cash on the 20th of the following month), and the construction period from May 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015.

B. From May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract with the contract amount of KRW 352,000,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “cost for the original contract”), one time a month for progress payment (within 30 days from the date of acquisition of the subject matter, cash 100%) and one time a period of construction from May 10, 2015 to August 31, 2015, respectively.

C. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff had been proceeding with approximately 20% of the instant civil engineering works, the Plaintiff discontinued the instant civil engineering works on the ground of unpaid subcontract consideration, and other subcontractors, who had been performing the instant wedding construction works, were also unable to receive subcontract consideration from B, as in that time, as in the Plaintiff.

Until around the discontinuance of construction works of this case, the Plaintiff received from B totaling KRW 74,00,000,000; and

6.12.4 million won;

7. 31. 30 million won

H. D.

around October 2015, the Plaintiff and the other subcontractors of the instant case resumed the instant civil engineering works. However, the Defendant’s construction of the instant wedding hall to the other subcontractors of B, such as Co., Ltd. G, the Defendant entrusted with metal, windows, and glass works, I entrusted with electricity, telecommunications, and electricity and fire fighting installation works, F Co., Ltd., the Defendant entrusted with electricity, telecommunications, and electricity and fire fighting installation works, and J, etc.

arrow