logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.04.12 2015가단8416
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C obtained a subcontract for stone installation works from D limited partnership companies (hereinafter “D”) under the Defendant’s name, and re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff during the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

At the time, C signed and sealed the seal of the defendant's name and signed a subcontract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

Therefore, since the defendant has given C the consent to leave and use the defendant's seal, it shall be deemed that C granted the right to represent the conclusion of the instant construction contract, and even if not, the defendant is obliged to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 70,032,00 in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency.

2. First of all, as to whether the Defendant granted the right to represent the conclusion of the instant construction contract to C, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the Defendant’s name in the document No. 2 (Standard Subcontract Agreement for Construction Business), but according to the fact that there is no dispute, it is sufficient to recognize that C has the right to affix the Defendant’s seal to the above contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the document No. 4 alone has the right to affix the Defendant’s seal to C. Thus, the above evidence No. 2 (Standard Subcontract Agreement for Construction Business) cannot be used as evidence, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant granted the right to represent the conclusion of the instant construction contract to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute, taking into account the facts and the purport of the entire argument, the Plaintiff was aware that C was to prepare the instant construction contract (Evidence No. 2) by lending the Defendant’s name as at the time of entering into the instant construction contract.

arrow