logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.13 2017나2080
사용료
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an agreement with the Defendant at the construction site of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seoul, with a fee of KRW 700,000 for KRW 1,00,00 for the Plaintiff’s carcles (hereinafter “instant construction machinery”).

The Plaintiff, during the 14-day period from August 4, 2015 to August 25, 2015, performed a material transport work using the instant construction machinery at the construction site for 14 days.

Although the Defendant was paid a fee of KRW 9.8 million to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 70 million a day x 14 days a day x 14 days), the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 7.8 million (i.e., KRW 9., KRW 9.8 million that was paid to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016, with the exception of KRW 2 million that was paid to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 7.8 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The fact that the Plaintiff performed material transport work using the instant construction machinery at the Seo-gu Incheon Construction Site (hereinafter “C Construction Site”) on August 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

B. As to whether the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 700,000 to the Plaintiff a daily fee for the use of the instant construction machinery at the construction site C at the construction site, it is difficult to find that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the same content, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise

(A) The Defendant agreed to use the instant construction machinery at the construction site and the construction site of Kimpo-si and Kimpo-si in KRW 8.5 million (excluding value-added tax) from May 2014 to July 2014, comprehensively taking into account the following purport: (a) that the Plaintiff agreed to pay additional usage fees to each site; (b) the Defendant agreed to use the instant construction machinery at the construction site and the construction site of Kimpo-si from May 2014 to July 2014.

arrow