(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나5755

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나5755

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined as KRW 40,00 per hour with the Defendant and concluded a equipment lease contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant put construction machinery into the site of the Defendant’s hotel new construction work for a total of 631.5 hours.

However, the Defendant paid only KRW 13,918,182, which is part of the value-added tax of KRW 27,786,00 [=25,260,000 (=631.5 hours x 40,000)] to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid equipment cost of KRW 13,867,818 (=27,786,000 – 13,917,182).

2. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 12, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of construction machinery (hereinafter “instant equipment lease contract”) on or around October 2015, the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant at the site of the hotel construction work located in Gangwon-gun C (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The Plaintiff completed work by inserting construction machinery into the construction site from October 8, 2015 to December 24, 2015 according to the instant equipment lease contract. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 8,80,000 as the cost of the instant equipment around November 18, 2015, and KRW 3,300,000 as the cost of the instant equipment.

However, the above facts and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone set the cost of equipment as KRW 40,00 per hour when the Plaintiff entered into the instant equipment lease agreement with the Defendant.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the amount of unpaid equipment paid to the plaintiff or the defendant remains, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나10301

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.01 2018나2197

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2015가단5321974

-창원지방법원 2017.06.21 2016나7672

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.02.11 2014가단12535