logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.04.14 2019가단4158
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,973,885 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 1, 2018 to March 27, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of packing construction business, civil engineering construction business, construction construction business, etc.

B. Around July 2015, the Defendant contracted the “C” construction from the East Sea (hereinafter “instant construction”) to KRW 5,351,058,000, and completed the said construction between October 2017. A considerable part of the instant construction works was subcontracted by the Defendant and subcontracted by D (hereinafter “D”).

C. The Plaintiff served as the head of the relevant site office from July 2015 to October 2017, when the instant construction begins.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the party's assertion.

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was employed by the Defendant and served as the site director of the instant construction work.

The construction cost of the instant construction was not paid in a timely manner, and the Plaintiff subrogated for the construction cost, material cost, and personnel expenses, etc. from February 2, 2017 to October 2017.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not receive expenses from the Defendant incurred while serving as the site manager at the construction site of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 65,120,00 paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant while carrying out the instant construction work, and the sum of KRW 32,043,885 paid by the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay.

B. The main point of the defendant's argument was that the construction of this case was subcontracted to D, and the plaintiff was working as the head of D's site rather than the head of the site office under his jurisdiction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit on the premise that the plaintiff works as the field director of the defendant's lawsuit.

In addition, the defendant did not agree that the plaintiff will settle the funds, etc. paid by the plaintiff in relation to the instant construction project in the future.

In this respect, the plaintiff's claim is also filed.

arrow