(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.16 2020나56338

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) 광주지방법원 2020.10.16 2020나56338

구상금

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The C National Park Service Office of the Korea National Park Service set the construction cost of the Plaintiff at KRW 126,845,00 (including value-added tax) around June 2018 and “C Cultural Heritage Zone Maintenance Corporation of the Korea National Park in 2018” (hereinafter “instant Maintenance Corporation”).

2) The Plaintiff subcontracted to the Defendant a package work during the instant maintenance work (hereinafter “instant package work”).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Defendant performed the instant package work from July 16, 2018 to December 8, 2018, but failed to complete some of the construction works.

In addition, there were some defects in the packing work of this case.

3) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair defects and execute the non-execution part, but the Defendant failed to perform that part. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested D’s E to perform the repair of defects and the non-execution part, and E received KRW 12 million from the Plaintiff and completed the construction work of repair of defects and non-execution part. 4) The Plaintiff paid KRW 12 million due to the Defendant’s non-execution, etc., and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 12 million and damages for delay.

B. A summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) around July 2018, a person who subcontracted the instant package work from the Plaintiff was not F but the Defendant. 2) The Defendant did not receive a subcontract from the Plaintiff for the instant package work, and there is no fact that the Defendant promised to repair the defects of the said package work to the Plaintiff.

3) Although the Defendant received KRW 18630,00 from the Plaintiff, it is not the price for the instant package work, where the Defendant received money from the Plaintiff for the purchase of materials (i.e., food and wood). Ultimately, the Defendant is not a party to the instant subcontract, but is not a party to the instant subcontract, and is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity.

2. The purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4 as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings.

유사 판례

-대법원 2004. 10. 27. 선고 2004다39276 판결

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.07.12 2016가단228023

-전주지방법원남원지원 2015.11.25 2015가단10142

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.08.20 2015고정128

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나72787