(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.12.18 2017가합55374

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.12.18 2017가합55374

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 March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction with the Defendant for construction works newly constructed a Defendant’s factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) on three parcels, namely, the period from March 29, 2017 to May 31, 2017. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant to change the date of completion to June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) b by referring to the said contract and the amendment contract.

Upon completion of the construction, the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant factory in accordance with the instant contract, and delivered it to the Defendant on July 4, 2017.

The Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant factory on July 5, 2017.

C. (1) The Defendant received a loan from D Bank and paid a total of KRW 517,60,000 to the Plaintiff three times, and then withdrawn a total of KRW 157,60,000 on six occasions through a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff under the custody of the Defendant. (2) On September 13, 2017, the Defendant directly paid KRW 5,314,880 to the Plaintiff E (State) related to the instant contract on behalf of the Plaintiff.

3) On June 1, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Agent F) as construction cost. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 3, and Eul’s 5 through 8 (if there are serial numbers, each number included; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As seen earlier, that the instant contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by the parties to the instant contract.

The defendant asserts that the actual contractor of the contract of this case is F and the plaintiff merely lent its name to F. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the actual contractor of the contract of this case is F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b).

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.09 2017가합561617

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.11.08 2016가합2371

-서울고등법원 2016.09.06 2015나2049659

-울산지방법원 2014.10.16 2013가합4841

-부산지방법원 2019.05.22 2017가합50153