logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.11.01 2016가단650
공사대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,776,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was awarded a contract for concrete cutting business and other work from the Defendant, and agreed with D, the Defendant’s on July 7, 2015, to the construction cost of KRW 161,109,850.

However, the defendant did not receive any balance of KRW 49,776,00 (No. 1) among the above amounts, and the defendant is liable to pay the above amount and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion D did not have been delegated the authority to approve the Plaintiff’s written claim and sign it. Thus, the Defendant cannot recognize the remainder amount of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and even if deemed delegated by the Defendant, it is based on mistake. Thus, the Plaintiff is not obliged to pay to the Plaintiff money exceeding KRW 24,150,753 according to the estimate and the actual work volume settlement statement (Evidence B (Evidence B 1 and 2) of October 22, 2014.

2. Determination

A. Under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, a commercial employee, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney, may perform all acts other than trials on a specific type of business or a specific matter granted to him/her, and therefore, there is no need to have separate rights from the proprietor for each act. However, whether a certain act falls under a specific type or matter of the delegated business shall be determined objectively in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of various circumstances, such as the size and nature of the business in question, the form and continuity of the business in question, the name of the employee

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da79838 Decided February 28, 2013). B.

In other words, as follows, D was the head of the construction site at the time and consulted on the amount of construction work frequently with the Plaintiff, the final settlement of accounts (Evidence A No. 1) as a result of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of each entry and the entire pleadings of the Health Team, Gap Nos. 1 through 22 (including the branch numbers).

arrow