(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.02 2013가단28968

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.02 2013가단28968

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 168 million (excluding value-added tax) among the Class II neighborhood living facilities construction works in the middle-class neighborhood living facilities located in B from the Defendant, and upon the Defendant’s request, brought about KRW 5,90,000 on the issues owned by the Defendant. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total construction cost of KRW 168,790,000 (= value-added tax of KRW 16,80,000,000, value-added tax of KRW 16,800,000 among the new construction cost of KRW 145,790,000, not paying the remainder of KRW 45,790,000,000.

As to this, the defendant asserts that water leakage has not occurred after the completion of the refining, and since the floor was ruptured, it would be offset against the plaintiff's claim for damages in lieu of defect repair, the defendant's claim for compensation in lieu of the defect repair, and therefore, the defendant's claim for compensation in lieu of the plaintiff's claim for compensation in lieu of the defect repair. Thus, in full view of the purport of the arguments in this court appraiser C as a whole, the building of this case is not installed in part of the steel pole, the installation of the steel pole, the installation of excellent house alteration, the installation of the floor rupture, the installation of the floor rupture, the interior floor rupture, the construction cost of 54,181,00 won in total for the plaintiff's claim for compensation in lieu of the defect repair claim against the plaintiff. According to the above facts recognized by the defendant, the defendant's claim for compensation in lieu of the above defect repair claim against the plaintiff is without merit, and the construction cost defense of this case is without merit.

Therefore, the existence and scope of the claim for the construction cost of this case should be examined further.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.08.24 2016나15631

-대전고등법원(청주) 2019.01.09 2018나2241

-춘천지방법원 2015.07.10 2014나3553

-수원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가단3982

-대전지방법원 2017.02.09 2015가단210108