(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.02.23 2014가단5538

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) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.02.23 2014가단5538

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2014, the Defendant: (a) contracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff with the construction period of three months, designating the construction period of the construction project as the construction project period of the Seoul-do land construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). (b)

On May 30, 2014, while the Plaintiff started the instant construction and started the construction, around August 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract would be rescinded.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the construction cost of KRW 93,800,00 (the construction cost of KRW 18,000,000 due to an increase in the size of KRW 74,30,000 in the construction cost of KRW 74,30,000 as of KRW 15,640,00). The Plaintiff entered into an additional construction agreement equivalent to KRW 15,640,000, and the Plaintiff completed the construction work to the extent of KRW 90,00.

Since the defendant has paid the construction cost of KRW 5,000,000, the defendant has a duty to pay KRW 54,440,000 ($93,80,000 +15,640,000 + 15,640,000-5,00,00) which has not yet been paid.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost of KRW 74,00,000 under the instant contract, and there was no agreement that the Plaintiff either executes construction works on the additional works claimed by the Plaintiff or pay the said cost.

The plaintiff suspended 70% of the construction work and the defendant continued to do the remaining construction work.

The defendant paid 60,000,000 won exceeding the amount corresponding to the part of the construction work performed by the plaintiff as the construction cost to the plaintiff, and even if the claim for the construction cost not repaid to the plaintiff, the damages claim in lieu of defect repair as to the building in this case is offset against the plaintiff's claim for the construction

3. Determination

A. 1) The contract price under the contract of this case is 74,000.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.07.09 2019가합404

-대구지방법원안동지원 2019.12.11 2019가단692

-부산지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나42887

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.01 2015가단50024

-대전고등법원(청주) 2015.09.22 2015나10203