logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단41302
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 is a trade name "C", and the defendant is a person who runs each construction business under the trade name "D".

B. On May 17, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for E work with the prime contractor, Koduk Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maduk Construction”). On May 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) used the ground ceiling equipment for E work; (b) discharged earth and sand by ceiling up to prescribed depth; and (c) inserted H-Ptile or steel chain in the public space; and (c) inserted the soil door to the main place to the main place to the end of the construction site to the end of the construction site to the end of the construction period in the name of the president of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (CAS-ININPPPP) and then used the soil door to the end of the construction period (see Article 3(1)(a) of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency Guidelines; hereinafter “Defendant 200,500,500,000,000).

C. Since then, the instant construction was carried out and completed around July 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not pay the construction cost of KRW 90 million under the contract, and thereafter, the additional construction cost of KRW 20 million was required. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the total construction cost of KRW 110 million was claimed.

B. The defendant's assertion that the person who actually carried out the construction of this case is not the plaintiff but the non-party F, but the non-party F. However, the plaintiff did not become a party to the construction contract and instead the plaintiff became a party to the contract, and F did not employ the necessary parts and technicians for the construction work.

As such, F and the Plaintiff’s material cost necessary for the start of the construction work on the joint venture, the principal contractor.

arrow