(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.10.13 2014가단14134

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.10.13 2014가단14134

석공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Defendants, on October 1, 2013, concluded a contract on the construction cost of the 770,000,000 won and the construction period from October 2, 2013 to February 28, 2014 with respect to the new construction of each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Defendants completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant building on July 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants agreed to be directly paid the construction cost of the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 62,00,000 for the remainder of the construction work and damages for delay against the Defendants.

3. As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that some of the items stated in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-4 and 1-3-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 1-2 are not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to receive the price of tin work directly from the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the plaintiff receives a subcontract for tin work of the building of this case from Hhoho Construction or "Ah" and part of the construction cost is Hho Construction and Hhoho Construction.

The fact that D, the actual owner of the Plaintiff’s management, stated that D was scheduled to file a lawsuit for the payment of the construction cost of the instant building against Hho Construction in the instant case of prohibition of interference with possession (this Court No. 2014Kahap10078). Therefore, in light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff entered into a direct contract with the Defendants, the owner of the building, in relation to Tho Construction.

It is difficult to deem that the Defendants agreed to receive the construction cost directly from the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.04.16 2016가단345567

-울산지방법원 2015.07.14 2015가단4619

-인천지방법원 2015.11.11 2014나12034

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.07 2016가단125910

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.08 2013가합2671