logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.11 2018나212628
공사대금
Text

1. Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, ordered payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant for 8,922,00 won (in addition to KRW 9,824,803,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and the construction cost was reduced to KRW 9,904,00,000) among the new buildings of the Sinju-si. The Plaintiff continued construction from June 28, 2017 to September 2, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 60,000 from the Defendant for the said construction cost, and received additional payment of KRW 36 million in total from D, the owner of the building, on August 14, 2017, and KRW 18 million on September 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the construction work has been completed under the above construction contract, the total of KRW 1640,000 and the total of KRW 7,148,00 shall be paid from the defendant.

B.1) According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s statement as to the unpaid construction cost, the amount of the construction cost under the tin construction contract made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is indicated as KRW 9,9.4 million, and the following amount is indicated as KRW 6,1620,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 36,000,000,000 was paid from D after the Plaintiff received 6,1620,000 from the Defendant. As seen above, the unpaid amount of the construction cost is KRW 1.42,00,000 (= KRW 99,040,000 - KRW 6,1620,000 - 36,000) (The Plaintiff asserted that the unpaid construction cost is KRW 1.64,00,00,000, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the above price after completion of the on-site rearrangement, such as repair of defects and cleaning of substitute stones, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Next, we examine the additional construction cost and submit it to the Plaintiff.

arrow