logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.04.06 2016가단69607
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 22,50,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from July 19, 2016 to April 6, 2018.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2016, the Defendant received a contract with the Plaintiff for the construction cost of KRW 27,500,000,000 for the electrical ship construction work from Defendant 2 factory in Silung-si (hereinafter “instant factory”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary construction of this case”). B.

On February 27, 2016, the Defendant replaced the instant factory with a sake tank, and the Plaintiff performed the distribution connection work accordingly.

C. On February 29, 2016, around 7:53, a fire occurred in the instant factory, and damage was caused to the extent of 200 square meters away from fire, such as machinery, etc.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

The Plaintiff performed restoration and additional construction of electric wires from the instant fire to April 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second construction in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5-9, and the purport of the entire pleading and video.”

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) Although the Plaintiff’s assertion completed all of the instant primary construction works, the Defendant paid only KRW 5,00,000 out of the construction cost. In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the instant secondary construction works, and the Plaintiff took charge of KRW 51,590,00 in the process of performing the instant secondary construction works. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 22,50,000 for the instant primary construction cost and KRW 74,590,000 for the instant secondary construction cost and KRW 51,590,000 for the instant secondary construction cost, and the delay damages therefrom. 2) While the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant did not complete all of the instant primary construction works, the instant construction works were caused by negligence in performing the instant secondary construction works due to the negligence in performing the instant secondary connection work replacing the instant factory around February 27, 2016.

Therefore, the account payable by the primary construction cannot be paid, which is premised on the completion of construction and delivery.

arrow