(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.03.21 2017가단12950

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) 청주지방법원 2019.03.21 2017가단12950

장비대금

Text

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 50750,000 and its interest thereon from June 30, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C awarded a contract to Nonparty E for the said construction as the owner of the D Urban Residential Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Plaintiff provided the instant construction to the said E, but did not receive KRW 45,150,000 from the price.

B. Upon the waiver of the construction work, Defendant C entered into the second contract with the F (State; hereinafter “F”) after the termination of the contract for construction work with the E, and on March 7, 2016, the F agreed to pay the Plaintiff the equipment cost and the remainder of reinforced soil (hereinafter “equipment cost”) KRW 4,5150,000 to the Plaintiff (However, the owner of the building is in direct payment), and the Defendant C promised to pay the equipment cost that the E has not been arranged to F when paying the remainder of the construction work cost after the same day.

C. Since then, Defendant C terminated the construction contract with F and entered into the third contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and Defendant C, on June 14, 2017, paid KRW 50750,000 to the Plaintiff the amount of unpaid equipment by June 30, 2017, and agreed to pay damages for delay by adding 25% per annum from the following day at the time of payment.

The money received by the Plaintiff from March 2016 to February 2017 from the Defendant Company, etc. with respect to the instant construction is as follows:

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9, Eul 2, 4, 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment on the claim against the defendant company constitutes a case where the defendant company did not clearly dispute the plaintiff's assertion because it was not present on the date of pleading even though it was served with a duplicate of the complaint and did not submit a written response

Therefore, the defendant company is running from June 30, 2017 to KRW 50,750,000 for the unpaid equipment costs to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가단21737

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.08 2015가합10528

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2015가단5321974

-인천지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단208259

-광주지방법원 2020.08.20 2019가합57935 (1)