(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.01.13 2014가단38862

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.01.13 2014가단38862

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction subcontract with the Defendant to set the price of KRW 236,500,000 with respect to “the instant construction project” (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On January 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not conclude a contract for alteration work with different opinions regarding the conclusion of the contract for alteration work to increase the construction cost, and the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work at that time.

C. The Defendant paid a total of KRW 75,070,000 to the Plaintiff or a third party to pay the instant construction cost from January 2014 to December 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1, 3, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is entitled to the payment of KRW 68,489,807 (including 18,330,000,000,000,000,000) for the construction cost, KRW 22,727,273, and 92,117,080,000, which was paid by the defendant, after deducting KRW 75,070,000,000 from the total of KRW 92,117,080,00.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the defendant paid the material price directly to the production company of the raw materials ordered by the plaintiff in relation to the Aluminium construction, the 18,330,000 won should be deducted from the material price for Aluminium construction.

3. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 12, 5, 6, 9, and 10, the plaintiff and the defendant calculated the unit price for the Aluminium construction at the time of conclusion of the instant construction contract (39,000 won for materials cost of 65,000 won) by 104,00 won at the time of conclusion of the instant construction contract. The plaintiff discontinued the construction as described in paragraph 1-B, and the defendant subcontracted the Aluminium construction to "A". The plaintiff ordered A to "B" in relation to the said construction; Eul paid a price of KRW 7 million to "A; and Eul processed it with a price of KRW 7 million and constructed the Aluminium construction.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.10 2016나1329

-서울고등법원 2015.01.14 2014나2034940

-서울고등법원 2019.01.30 2017나2072783

-대구지방법원 2014.12.30 2013가단52797

-대전지방법원 2018.12.20 2016가단223651