logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.11.08 2015가단19176
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 79,736,200 as well as 5% per annum from February 18, 2015 to May 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction was completed after entering into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant and Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the removal of scams, etc. regarding the remodeling project. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 79,736,200 and the delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction contract was directly concluded with the Plaintiff does not exist (the Defendant recognized the obligation to pay the construction cost on December 22, 2015). The Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost only for the quantity of the construction confirmed objectively, and the details of the construction and the construction cost alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized.

2. Determination

A. In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 2, and 19, Gap evidence Nos. 17, Gap evidence Nos. 17, Gap evidence Nos. 17, witness testimony of this court, appraisal results and arguments with respect to appraiser E of this court: ① the defendant company agreed to transfer the contract for the instant construction to G, etc. under the name of the defendant company’s permission; Byung entered into the contract under the name of the defendant company; Eul issued a tax invoice to the defendant; ② on Nov. 1, 2014, Eul was appointed as the above site agent; ② the defendant registered as the employee of the defendant company; ③ the defendant confirmed the volume of the construction works performed by the plaintiff; ③ the defendant company cancelled the contract for the purchase of G around December 30, 2014; and ④ the defendant company’s related status deprived of the defendant company’s authority to remove and dispose of the fire-fighting facilities of this case; ④ The plaintiff removed the fire-fighting facility of this case around February 15, 2015.

arrow