(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.10.31 2018가단100861

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.10.31 2018가단100861

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant C, as the owner of the building around 2012, contracted the 4th floor construction of the building to Defendant B, etc., and the 5th floor construction of the commercial building to Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, respectively.

B. Around September 2012, Defendant B subcontracted to the Plaintiff the mold construction among the structural frame construction works in the construction site of the said two sites (i) the construction site, (ii) the construction site, and (iii) the construction site to KRW 68 million, respectively.

C. By March 2013, the Plaintiff completed both the molding construction of the two sites.

However, Defendant B did not pay the total of KRW 19.3 million of the construction cost at the construction site, ② the total of KRW 33 million of the construction cost at the construction site.

E. Around 2014, Defendant C promised to pay the said unpaid construction cost upon the completion of the auction procedure of the said building.

F. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the said payment amount of KRW 19.3 million and the damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. We examine the claim against Defendant B, and first set the construction cost as claimed by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff completed the construction work, and that the Plaintiff’s claim remains in balance. Therefore, we do not accept this part of the claim without further review.

Even if the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s assertion exists, as asserted by the said Defendant, the instant lawsuit was filed on January 9, 2018 when three years have elapsed since March 2013, which was the extinctive prescription period, due to the completion of construction of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim construction cost has expired.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendant.

The plaintiff asserted that the above defendant approved the plaintiff's debt, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

B. As to the claim against Defendant C, the above Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단324966

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.03.30 2017가단210579

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.25 2016가단74890

-인천지방법원 2017.01.24 2016가합53080

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단23243