logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.09.04 2013가합55135
손해배상(건)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, upon receiving a contract from the Korea Environment Corporation for the Han River Basin Maintenance Works (Article 3-3 Section), held the site site consultation conference on December 14, 2012 against bidders, including the Plaintiff, in order to conclude a subcontract for the second works during the said construction works.

Standard Subcontract Agreement for Construction Works

1. Project owner: Environmental Management Corporation;

2. The name of the prime contract: The name of the subcontracted project for the improvement of sewage conduits in the Han River basin (Article 3-3): The works for the improvement of sewage conduits;

3. The construction site: Members of the said construction site.

4. Period: From January 14, 2013 to October 31, 2013;

5. Contract amount: 5.79 billion won: 5.265 billion won (labor cost: 1,970,820,410 won): 520 million won.

B. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tendering procedure by stating the minimum unit price and selecting the responding company as a subcontractor; and (b) concluded a subcontract contract with the Plaintiff on January 14, 2013 with the following content (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On January 28, 2013, February 4, 2013, and February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff’s commencement of construction work of this case, the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, on February 18, 2013, submitted a construction plan and a work schedule to the Plaintiff, and submitted a construction plan and a work schedule to the Plaintiff as soon as the Plaintiff did not secure the working party and on-site employees to work at the construction site of this case, and submitted a work plan and a work schedule to the Plaintiff, and on February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s general management plan (3/1), Gwangju (3/7), Gwangju (3/7), and 3/7 (3/14) as well as the Plaintiff’s respective construction sections due to the delay in the construction work.

Nevertheless, the Corporation of this case.

arrow