logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.29 2014가단55735
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around August 26, 2013, Pream Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract with the Gyeonggi-do Forest Environment Research Institute for “E” located in Dongbcheon-si (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).

B. Around September 5, 2013, Pung Forest Co., Ltd. subcontracted part of the instant construction to the Defendant Young Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

C. The Plaintiffs introduced Defendant C with the introduction of the instant construction site, carried out the leasing or piling up of heavy equipment at the construction site of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 17, 19, 23 (including paper numbers); each fact inquiry conducted by the Gyeonggi-do Forest Environment Research Institute; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the construction price to the plaintiffs since they concluded a contract with the defendant company at the construction site, and the defendant company is obligated to pay the construction price to the plaintiffs, if the defendant company is not the contracting party. Accordingly, the defendant company did not conclude a contract with the plaintiffs, and the defendant company did not conclude a contract with the plaintiffs, and the defendant company did not claim the payment of the construction price to the defendant forest company that received the order of the construction of this case. The defendant Eul introduced the plaintiffs to the defendant company Pung Forest Co., Ltd. in relation to the construction of this case, and thus, the defendant Eul did not bear any responsibility for the above construction price.

B. Each description of Gap's 7, 9, and 11 and witness F's testimony, which seems to be consistent with the fact that the plaintiffs and the defendant company entered into a contract with respect to the instant construction project, are as follows: Eul's 1, 2, Eul's 4 through 7, Eul's 16 to 19, Eul's 23, Eul's 1 through 23, Eul's 1 through 4 (including the serial number), and this court's testimony.

arrow