(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나1898 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나1898

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B is a representative in the name of E in Ulsan-gu, Namsan-gu, and Defendant C is a real representative in the name of E.

B. On November 201, 201, the Plaintiff subcontracted part of the studio construction work on the Fstudio in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to the Defendants and completed the construction work.

C. In relation to the construction cost of the instant construction project on September 28, 2012, Defendant C: (a) delegated KRW 10 million to A; (b) subsequent follow-up management; and (c) entrusted management and balance in consultation with the owner G upon delegation by A; and (d) drafted a power of delegation stating “C” on September 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant power of delegation”).

In light of the letter of delegation of this case, the plaintiff was not paid KRW 10 million out of the construction price by the defendants. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 10 million.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that defendant C prepared the power of attorney of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff.

However, the purport of the text of the power of attorney of this case lies in the purport that Defendant C, the contractor of the instant construction, entrusts the Plaintiff with the follow-up management of the instant construction work and accordingly, permits the Plaintiff to directly receive the construction cost of KRW 10 million from G (it does not seem to be the purport that Defendant C or the Defendants would directly bear the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff). Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment against the Defendants based on the power of attorney of this case. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had the claim for construction payment from the Defendants in relation to the instant construction work.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case must be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가단125227

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.06.19 2019가단20265

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단30968

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노2347

-서울남부지방법원 2018.06.19 2016가단48765