logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.24 2019가단22837
공사대금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) contracted for a new construction work with the Incheon Cheongjin-gun; (b) subcontracted the metal structure and facility construction work among the construction work to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on July 5, 2016.

On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff received a sub-subcontract for the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from D to KRW 228,80,00 for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax). D did not perform its construction work in the middle and came to be closed from October 2016.

Accordingly, the Defendant directly subcontracted the instant construction to the Plaintiff and ordered the Plaintiff to execute the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on January 2017, 201.

As above, the Defendant directly entrusted the instant construction to the Plaintiff, and directly paid KRW 251,680,00 (including value-added tax) which is the construction cost arising from a subcontract between the Plaintiff and D. The Defendant, according to electronic tax invoices, submitted the Plaintiff’s monthly details to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, upon submitting the monthly details of the worker’s labor cost, paid the Plaintiff the expenses directly to the worker and the worker’s food, etc., respectively.

However, since the defendant paid only KRW 174,500,000, which is a part of it, it is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 77,180,000 and damages for delay.

2. The following circumstances, which can be seen as being added to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), i.e., the plaintiff himself directly subcontracted the construction work of this case to the plaintiff according to D’s closure of business. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant succeeded to the construction cost of 251,680,000 (including value added tax) under the subcontract between the plaintiff and D as it is or that the subcontract between the plaintiff and the defendant was immediately concluded at the above amount. The construction cost claimed by the plaintiff is the construction cost.

arrow