logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가합52799
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the entire construction cost of KRW 750,00,000 for the Civil Works with respect to C 4789 square meters for factory sites in Yangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff completed the construction work on May 2018.

Since the Defendant paid only KRW 49,200,000 among the above construction costs to the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 775,800,000 (=750,000), 110% - 49,200,000).

B. The Defendant only concluded a contract for construction with approximately KRW 50,00,000 for part of the civil construction works on the instant land with the Plaintiff, and did not conclude a contract for construction as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The construction contract submitted by the Plaintiff (A No. 3, hereinafter “instant contract”) is a false contract which is prepared in collusion with the Defendant in order to reduce capital gains tax burden in the course of selling the instant land and building on the ground.

2. Whether the Plaintiff claims construction price

A. As long as the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the relevant legal doctrine unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76825, Jan. 27, 2011). In order to deny the probative value of a dispositive document that has been admitted as a petition, there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is a counter-proof or that the content of the document is contrary to the objective truth.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da57117 delivered on February 8, 1994, etc.). B.

Judgment

1 According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant prepared the contract of this case with the following contents:

3. The construction site: D in ancient cities;

4. Period of construction: Contract amount on February 25, 2010 after the commencement of construction: KRW 750,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

6. Payment of the price: at least 50 per cent.

arrow