(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.27 2018나8043 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2019.09.27 2018나8043

추심금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff owned the claim for the rent of equipment against the limited company C (hereinafter “C”). However, on January 9, 2018, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order (No. 2018Kadan11, Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Gadan53599, Jeonju District Court Decision 2018, Feb. 13, 2018, with respect to the claim for the collection of equipment (hereinafter “the collection claim of this case”) from the Defendant as the claim for the provisional attachment and collection order (No. 29,437,517, which was based on the above final judgment (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) from the Defendant as the provisional attachment and collection order (the Jeonju District Court 2018Ma1147, hereinafter “the collection order of this case”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the collection claim and damages for delay of the instant case.

B. The collection order of this case, based on the summary of the defendant's assertion, cannot be seized the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to the workers of the construction (including subcontracted construction) out of the contract amount of the construction work for which the constructor is awarded a contract, under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 88 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(2) The scope of the amount equivalent to wages under paragraph (1) and the calculation method shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The amount equivalent to the wage as prescribed in Article 88 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be calculated by summing up the wages specified in the calculation sheet from among contract amount of the construction work in question.

(2) The ordering person (including the contractor in cases of a subcontract) of a construction work shall specify the wage as referred to in paragraph (1) in a contract or subcontract document.

shall not be subject to seizure under the provisions of this subsection.

참조조문

-건설산업기본법 제88조

-건설산업기본법 시행령

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.25 2016가단5097582

-대법원 2005. 6. 24. 선고 2005다10173 판결

-울산지방법원 2015.09.09 2014가합18595

-청주지법 2005. 4. 21. 선고 2004나3339 판결

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.11.24 2020가단1655