(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나2974 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나2974

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a retail business of construction materials in Sacheon-si C with the trade name “D,” and the Defendant is a contractor who received a contract from E, the owner of building on July 21, 2015, for the 4th floor housing remodeling project located in F in Sacheon-si (hereinafter “instant construction project”) for construction cost of KRW 25 million.

B. Upon receiving a request from the Defendant to introduce a part of the work necessary for the instant construction, the Plaintiff introduced G on July 25, 2015 to the Defendant.

C. From July 28, 2015 to August 6, 2015, G performed the instant construction in E’s housing. During the said period, G supplied construction materials, such as cement, styp, styp, styp, steel monak, etc., and tools, and boiler sets (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the construction site of the instant construction site through G during the said period, and issued a trading list indicating the total amount of KRW 2,932,50 in the Defendant’s future.

Meanwhile, E remitted the Defendant’s wife KRW 10 million to H on July 23, 2015, and KRW 7 million on August 9, 2015 to the instant construction cost.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 (including evidence number), Eul's evidence Nos. 14, Eul's witness G's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion G is the Defendant’s on-site director during the construction period, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant goods (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3,225,750 won, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not confirm the detailed statement of transaction issued by the Plaintiff, and G is an employee of the Plaintiff, and there is no authority to be supplied with the instant goods on behalf of the Defendant because G cannot be said to be the Defendant’s on-site manager, and the Defendant is not obligated to pay the instant goods. 2) Even if G is the Defendant’s on-site manager, the boiler

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.10.11 2016나2530

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.05.22 2018가단1869

-청주지방법원 2015.05.27 2014가단17510

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.01.09 2016가단2945

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.15 2020가단14473