logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나1012
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the principal lawsuit shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. Although the Defendant received a contract for the interior works of the law firm office (hereinafter “instant construction works”), it subcontracted the contract to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2014 due to the duplicate of the construction works, and the estimate presented by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is attached Form.

1. The description of the estimate of the instant construction project, among the estimates of the Plaintiff, is as follows;

B. Since the commencement of the above construction work, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 37,000,000 from the Defendant for the said construction cost four times.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (i) The Plaintiff first completed the instant construction work, but did not receive KRW 5,00,000 out of the construction cost, and the Defendant alleged to the effect that it could not accept the Plaintiff’s claim because the non-construction part exists.

The burden of proof on the completion and completion of the construction works in the Consultative Contract is against the contractor seeking the payment of the construction cost.

However, in light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers), it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement of Gap evidence No. 4, a text message on the settlement of erroneous construction cost temporarily between the original defendant and the original defendant exceeds KRW 37,00,000,000, inasmuch as there is no other evidence, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, at the Defendant’s request other than the instant construction, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 9,400,000 as additional construction cost, since the construction was completed 14 construction works as stated in the separate sheet among the detailed estimates in the attached sheet.

To recognize the additional construction cost claim of the contractor, the construction work must not change the simple construction method within the total amount of the construction cost.

arrow