logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.22 2017나3336
공사대금
Text

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

The Defendants, the owner of the new apartment building or the owner of the land, alleged by the parties, agreed to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 25,480,000,000, including the additional construction cost, in accordance with the agreement.

A person who entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff is a contractor and is not the Defendants, the owner or the landowner.

The Defendants only provided the Plaintiff with a security for the payment of the construction cost by K and L, a contractor, the J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) and L, and there is no stipulation that the Defendants would directly pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

Facts of recognition

Around October 2013, M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) was awarded a contract for the construction of a H apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the ground from N, who was the owner of the G G 1,354 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

around November 29, 2013, the J accepted a subcontract for pelpel works from M. Around May 2014, as the progress of construction was difficult due to M’s financial difficulties, the construction of the instant apartment was directly carried out.

Defendant C decided to invest in the said new construction project to be conducted by J upon the request of K and L, and purchased GJ 1,354 square meters from N on May 14, 2014, which is the site of the instant apartment, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of May 15, 2014, under the name of the Defendant above the registration of ownership transfer as of May 15, 2014, and Defendant C’s co-born Defendant B became the owner of the instant apartment building around May 28, 2014.

On June 2015, the Plaintiff received request from J L to undertake the floor reconstruction construction of the instant apartment. At the time, the construction site of the instant apartment is suspended due to the delay in construction cost, and the lien is exercised.

arrow