logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.12 2016가단25743
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant entered into a contract with B limited liability company (hereinafter “B head office”) to purchase products of B head office and sell them again, and operated B stores in the 5th head office, Cheongwon, Chuncheon, Mangsan, Mangju, and 5th office.

B. The Plaintiff performed the interior construction in the above five stores operated by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff, the primary cause of the claim, entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant, and entered into the relevant five burials from September 2015 to February 2, 2016.

The construction cost is 31,903,000 won except value added tax.

Among them, the amount borne by B head office is 5,000,000 won.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,90,00,000, excluding the above KRW 5,000,000, plus KRW 2,690,300, plus value-added tax of KRW 10,00.

B. The Defendant, a preliminary claim, obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the construction cost, and thus, returned it to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to the claim for construction cost, the Plaintiff did not prepare a written contract for construction work with the Defendant. It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work on the oral basis with the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff knew that the head office B, even without the explicit agreement, should notify the Defendant of the fact, schedule, and estimate of the interior construction work, and should be borne by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant knew all of such facts. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not refuse or raise an objection to the interior construction work, and did not actively cooperate with the Plaintiff, and even after the construction, the Plaintiff actively requested repair while using the outcome as it was for business purposes.

arrow