(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.25 2015나33547

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) 수원지방법원 2016.11.25 2015나33547

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 65,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto from January 3, 2015 to November 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to set the construction cost of KRW 185,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to civil engineering works among the construction works for creating the penta-gun Fa-gun Complex in Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “civil engineering works”).

B. On May 20, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the construction cost of KRW 100,000 with respect to the construction work in G8 (hereinafter “construction work”) among the above penta complex (hereinafter “construction work”). The construction work contract is written by the Defendant as the contractor.

C. The Plaintiff’s completion of the entire civil works and construction works, and the amount which was not paid out of the price is KRW 65,00,000.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost of KRW 65,00,000 is unpaid.

The defendant, who is a contractor of construction works, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 65,00,000 and the delay damages for the construction work.

B. Since the parties to the construction contract for the defendant's assertion are D, the defendant is not obligated to pay the construction cost.

Even if the Defendant is a contractor for construction works, the Defendant paid 100,000,000 won for construction works to D, and the 65,000,000 won claimed by the Plaintiff is merely the amount of civil construction works not paid from D.

Even if the construction cost that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff remains, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has been completed.

C. In full view of the witness E’s testimony, witness D, and H’s testimony and the overall purport of each of the testimony and arguments before the determination of the parties to the construction contract for the 1st construction project, D, the representative director of the retired company, who worked for E without charge, has set the instant building at the intervals of leaving E, instead of paying retirement allowances, etc.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.09.22 2014가합15500

-서울고등법원 2018.12.12 2017나29158

-인천지방법원 2015.07.10 2014가합4220

-울산지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가합502

-서울동부지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가합100360