logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단38671
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff on the condition that the subcontractor enter into a subcontract to provide the Plaintiff with the term of construction cost of KRW 693,00,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction period of construction as from May 13, 2013 to August 31, 2013, among the construction for the extension of the distribution terminal of oriental samples that the Defendant contracted from Hangya Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost to KRW 662,516,000 among the terms and conditions of the said subcontract, and to extend the deadline for completion as of September 7, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

After completing the instant construction work within the construction period, the Plaintiff received confirmation of completion from the Defendant, and received a performance guarantee insurance policy for KRW 19,875,480 from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on October 30, 2013 to guarantee the performance of the defect repair obligation under the said construction work, and issued it to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 662,516,00 on four occasions.

Around September 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair defects, which appeared in the phenomenon that the water drained with the water drained with the water drained, and the Plaintiff’s employees conducted the removal of ratons after on-site inspections and the inducement and drainage of the water repair section.

E. Subsequent to that, the Defendant received a request for repair of defects on the ground that the concrete surface in the construction site of this case was grypted, cut away, and dust dust occurred from the original contractor's sampling, the floor was cornered, and water dysing from the mouth amount (hereinafter "instant defect"), etc., and received a request for repair of defects on the ground that the Plaintiff continuously requested the repair of defects, but the Plaintiff did not perform the said repair of defects, and the Plaintiff did not perform it on October 15, 2013.

arrow