logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2013.07.26 2013가합1340
물품대금
Text

1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is primarily the same year from March 31, 2012.

9. Until September 29, 200, the Defendant supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 236,394,952 at the site of Kimpo-si Ba-si Ba-si Ba-si, Kimpo-si, which was subcontracted from the comprehensive construction, and received KRW 68,596,694 among them, and the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder materials price to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the opposite contractual party who supplied the building materials by the plaintiff is not the defendant, but C, and the defendant only received the building materials from C, and therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the material price to C, separately from whether the defendant bears the obligation to pay the material price to the plaintiff.

B. 1) First of all, we examine whether the Defendant is liable to pay the material price to the Plaintiff as the counter-party to the transaction who is supplied with the material from the Plaintiff. Determination of who is the party to the contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. The interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning given by the party to the transaction. In the case where the content of a contract is written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning given by the party to the transaction should be reasonably interpreted without any relationship between the parties’ internal intent, even though it is not bound by the phrase used in writing. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized as stated in the text, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012).

arrow