logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.28 2015가단15344
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of steel bars, roof and home conduits, metal, painting, and board construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from the Mapo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mail Construction”), with the construction cost fixed from 28,513,454 won (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 10, 2014 to November 8, 2014.

B. From October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the title and glass construction among the construction works for the new construction of the village hall B (hereinafter “instant second construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 15,486,545 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 20, 2014 to November 20, 2014.

C. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the effect that, even if the instant construction was completed on January 2, 2015, the construction cost should not be paid, the Plaintiff paid the unpaid construction cost within seven days. As such, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice of performance to the effect that the unpaid construction cost should be paid within seven days.

On March 13, 2015, due to the Plaintiff’s failure to complete construction works within the deadline for completion, 1,026,484 won for liquidated damages were deducted, and the remaining amount was 17,886,970 won as a written response.

E. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a written claim to the Defendant that he/she would claim a direct payment of KRW 26,769,99 of the subcontract price, as it did not pay the construction price even after the Plaintiff completed the instant work Nos. 1 and 2.

F. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 25,077,590 as the construction cost for the instant construction project from Mara Construction. 6, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, and 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In determining the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff shall pay the subcontract price that is to be paid pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

arrow