logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.01.15 2013가합5904
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The plaintiff is a company specializing in reinforced concrete construction, and the defendant is a company engaged in building and engineering work.

On February 20, 2013, the Defendant, who was awarded a contract with the owner C for the construction of the “Ewa Holdings Construction” on the ground of the building owner C, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on February 20, 2013, setting the supply price of reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 970,00,000 (value-added tax separate) and the construction period from February 20, 2013 to June 20, 2013. On June 15, 2013, the Plaintiff and the instant construction period were extended to July 15, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). According to the instant contract, 90% of the monthly interest rate shall be paid in cash at the end of each month on the 20th of the following month, and 10% of the balance shall be paid within 45 days after completion.

As the instant construction project was not completed by July 15, 2013, upon receiving wages from the Plaintiff, F, who was in charge of wooden parts of the instant construction project on July 26, 2013, drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “F, by August 23, 2013, complete the instant construction project with the additional recognized amount of KRW 280,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not additionally recognize the amount of KRW 280,000,000 as well as the additional recognized amount of KRW 280,00,00,000, and at the time of the delay of construction, F, who is liable for liquidated damages.”

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Plaintiff received KRW 906,613,450 by July 16, 2013, and F completed the instant construction work around September 2013.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute over the grounds of recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, and the ground of claim as to the whole of pleadings, the Defendant concluded a separate contract with the Plaintiff’s sewage supplier from May 2013 and continued the instant construction, while the Plaintiff was present as an arbitrator on July 26, 2013, and excluded F and the Plaintiff from the contractual relationship.

arrow