(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.05.04 2015가단46222

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) 대전지방법원 2016.05.04 2015가단46222

폐기물처리비

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,906,424 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 19, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a contract to transport and dispose of construction waste generated at the construction site for extension or reconstruction of the B convalescent in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, with the amount of KRW 12,00 per ton of waste concrete, KRW 24,00 per ton of waste soil and rocks, KRW 24,000 per ton of waste, and KRW 30,000 per ton of waste timber, and KRW 30,000 per cubic meter of waste. The plaintiff concluded a contract to transport and dispose of construction waste generated at the construction site for extension or reconstruction of the B convalescent in Daejeon-gu

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20,906,424 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 19, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with since the defendant provided Masung Co., Ltd. which entered into a contract for removal works with a security to delegate his/her authority to establish pharmacies in the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City.

The plaintiff was found to have entered into a contract with the defendant for collection, transportation, disposal, and consignment of construction waste in addition to Sungco Co., Ltd., and the power of attorney submitted by the defendant alone cannot be found to have asserted that the defendant provided a security to the plaintiff, and even if so, the defendant provided a security to the plaintiff.

Even if such circumstance alone does not lead to the extinguishment of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant by payment in kind, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단241914

-대구지방법원 2021.04.07 2020나313835

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.18 2016가단5836

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2016.09.13 2016고단1499

-서울남부지방법원 2014.12.04 2013가합15983