logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.01.10 2016가합1571
공사대금 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 41,533,222 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from January 25, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

Reasons

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur operating a construction machinery rental company under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur operating a scrap metal and non-retailing retail company under the trade name of “D.”

B. On June 19, 2013, the Defendant received contracts from E (hereinafter “E”) for the removal of F-building apartments and waste disposal services (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the contract price of KRW 420,000 (Additional Tax).

(hereinafter “instant removal contract”). C.

On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased all of the non-processed goods in the removal site under the condition that the removal works for 12 apartment units (G from Dong to H Dong), one commercial building (I Dong), Dong office, and apartment units are performed from April 14, 2015 to 120 days; (b) the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 400 million; (c) the Plaintiff directly pays 120 million to the Defendant; and (d) concluded a sales contract for the non-processed goods with the condition of removal that the remainder KRW 280 million will be appropriated for the construction cost received by the Defendant from E in the instant removal contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On November 17, 2015, the Defendant waives all parts of the removal works and scrap iron in E as of November 17, 2015. The Defendant’s waiver of the removal works in this case.

(A) prepare and deliver the document. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, evidence No. 12-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 13, evidence No. 26, 27, and 28, each of the statements and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the removal construction was carried out in accordance with the instant contract, and on November 15, 2015, one apartment building with no occupant household until November 15, 2015, and one unit of land of the building subject to removal, except for the building of the general office building and the building of the building to be removed, which was used as a site office from the J Co., Ltd.

arrow