(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.06.18 2014가합983

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.06.18 2014가합983

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) performed the construction of lecture rights among the conduits contracted by the Defendant from a domestic telecommunications company, etc.; (b) the construction cost is to be paid 80% of the direct labor cost set by the Defendant’s original contract (the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to bear the costs of materials is not disputed between the parties; (c) the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was to bear the costs of the equipment; and (d) the Defendant was to bear the burden of the Plaintiff; and (e) the construction under the said agreement from April 1, 201 to May 31, 2014.

B. Under the instant agreement, the construction cost (80% of the direct labor cost set forth in the original contract) of the part executed by the Plaintiff is KRW 1,226,725,91, and the construction cost paid by the Defendant directly or in direct payment, etc. to the Plaintiff is KRW 1,250,071,701 (i.e., equipment cost) (i., KRW 372,925,000 for the Plaintiff’s construction cost 87,146,701).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 17, 25 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant entered into the instant agreement in such a way as to have the Defendant bear the equipment costs. The construction cost of the part constructed by the Plaintiff is KRW 1,226,725,91, and the construction cost paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff except for the equipment costs is KRW 877,146,701. The Defendant is obligated to pay the difference to the Plaintiff KRW 349,579,290 (= KRW 1,226,725,91 – KRW 87,146,701) and delay damages.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant agreement by means of having the Plaintiff and the Defendant bear the equipment costs, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit to examine the plaintiff's claim.

4. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.04.03 2017가단8429

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.10 2019가단5099534

-부산고등법원 2017.10.19 2016나3058

-광주고등법원 2020.09.10 2019나25287

-대구지방법원 2015.06.12 2014가단58648