logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.01.28 2014나9067
물품대금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,323,00 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a mutually cafeteria with the trade name “D” in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and the Defendant is a company engaging in the creative construction business.

나. 피고는 대림건설 주식회사와 세종특별자치시 E 신축공사 중 유리, 샷시 공사에 관한 하도급계약을 체결한 후, 다시 ‘F’라는 상호로 건축업에 종사하는 G과 재하도급 계약(이하 ‘이 사건 공사’라 한다)을 체결하였다.

C. From May 2013, the Plaintiff provided meals to the people who had been performing the instant construction in Sejong City, and as G did not pay KRW 11,188,00 from May 24, 2013 to September 24, 2013, the provision of meals was suspended. Ultimately, the instant construction was discontinued.

On October 25, 2013, the Defendant, a contractor of G, paid 8,910,000 won (=1,188,000 won-2,278,000 won), excluding the aforementioned unpaid food costs of KRW 11,188,00 (hereinafter “instant unpaid food”).

E. After December 15, 2013, the Plaintiff provided continuing meals to the instant construction workers. Of the meals that the Plaintiff provided thereafter, the amount that the Plaintiff had not received is KRW 12,323,00 (hereinafter “instant food supply”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid food amounting to KRW 14,601,00 (=the existing food amounting to KRW 2,278,000 in the future of this case) to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant did not conclude a meal supply contract with the plaintiff or agreed to pay the food amount. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unreasonable.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant promised to pay food to the Health Team and the Defendant, based on the determination on the existing unpaid food claim portion of the instant case, is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and No. 3-2, 5, and 7-2, 5, and 3-1, 3, 4, 6, and 6-2.

arrow