logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가합541381
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s “A” from a lot construction corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

A) A contract was concluded, and around 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of aggregate with the Plaintiff. When the instant construction was delayed due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 450,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the payment for the construction cost and compensation for losses not paid (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On December 20, 201, B, the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, prepared a loan certificate of KRW 450,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant. In addition, around April 2010, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay for the monthly payment of KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on April 13, 201, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 35,000 to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and also the said KRW 35,000,000 to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 45,00,000 and KRW 35,00,000 as loans, and delay damages incurred therefrom, if the Plaintiff did not have the right to borrow money from the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not have the right to borrow money from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 485,000,000 won to the plaintiff as damages.

B. As to the claim 1 of the agreed amount, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 450,000,000 for the unpaid construction cost and compensation for losses with respect to the instant construction work.

The testimony of the witness C as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion that B obtained the power of representation from the Defendant is difficult to believe it as it is, and the statement of the evidence No. 7 alone is recognized.

arrow