(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017가단216879

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017가단216879

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings in response to the response to the submission of the tax information by the head of this court against the head of the Kim Sea Tax Office, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff, who runs the original construction business with the trade name “C,” has participated by mobilization of the parts belonging to the Corporation related to the “Eel” located in D from October 27, 2015 to February 24, 2016 when the Defendant registered his/her business, and there is no reflective evidence.

The plaintiff asserts that his participation in the above construction work was due to the supply of the pertinent construction work from the defendant, and sought payment of the total construction cost of KRW 143,986,180, which was not yet paid, and damages for delay thereof, against the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant has changed to the purport that the contractor of the above construction work is Nonparty F and the plaintiff is presumed to be the subcontractor of the above F.

According to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff received a total of KRW 60,66 million from the defendant during the above construction period.

However, since the defendant ordered the above construction work to F and transferred part of the construction cost to F and the plaintiff at the request of direct payment from F during the process of construction work, the above remittance alone is insufficient to conclude that a construction contract was directly concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant paid F with the commencement of construction work and the partial completion of construction work, which is consistent with the defendant's defense, and there is no other evidence supporting the fact that the construction contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Thus, we cannot accept the plaintiff's argument on the ground of claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair and dismissed.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.04.14 2014가단11237

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단130855

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.10.18 2017가단2629

-전주지방법원 2020.01.17 2018나2274

-부산지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나3090