logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.11.23 2016나753
레미콘대금 청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The grounds cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Defendants asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the Defendants in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and each description of the evidence set forth in No. 8 or No. 10 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted in the court of first instance are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the Defendants’ assertion is justifiable.

Therefore, this court's explanation of this case is based on the dismissal of "B" in the third third sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance from "B", and the defendants' assertion in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of the judgment as described in the following paragraph 2, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted as the Defendants: (a) the first instance court co-defendant D Co-Defendant D Co-Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and the second instance court’s construction of an office site and an urban-type residential housing construction project (hereinafter “instant 2”) (hereinafter “the instant construction project”); (b) the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract directly with G, the owner of the instant 1 construction project, which is the owner of the instant construction project; and (c) the Defendants paid the payment guarantee for the amount of the 1 construction project, which was supplied to the instant construction project; and (d) the amount of the 1 construction project.

The Defendants did not conclude a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to be supplied with ready-mixeds to the instant 2 Corporation, and there was no fact that the Defendants provided payment guarantee for ready-mixeds supplied to the instant 2 Corporation.

B. According to the evidence presented in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was accepted by the trial court, the payment of the construction cost for the materials, such as 'Reconcons,' under Article 39 of the General Conditions of the Standard Contract for Construction Works written between the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company") and G, is all made by the owner.

arrow