logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나80475
공사대금
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of artificial park construction business, etc., and the Defendant concluded a franchise agreement with C, and operates a coffee specialty store with the trade name of “F” on the first floor of the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. The Plaintiff of the instant interior works contracted with the coffee specialty department of the instant store (hereinafter “instant interior works”) and completed the construction from June 20, 2018 to August 21, 2018.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the parties concerned had not received KRW 24,790,000 of the options construction cost to be borne by the Defendant even though the construction contract was concluded and the construction work was completed, the Plaintiff sought payment of the construction cost, including value-added tax, by setting the basic construction cost as KRW 15,00,000, and the options construction cost as KRW 44,790,000.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the other party to the instant interior construction contract, which the Plaintiff entered into, is not the Defendant, but the master franchisee, as the construction under the franchise franchise agreement.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by the parties to the contract of the instant Rotterdam and their contents and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17, and Eul evidence No. 1 and the entire purport of pleadings, upon entering into the construction contract related to the instant Rotterdam among the Plaintiff, the Defendant who is a franchise store, and the Defendant C, a franchise store, for each member store among the instant Rotterdam Corporation, Co., Ltd., the Co., Ltd bears the expenses for the so-called “basic construction” in common among the instant Rotterdam Corporation, and for each member store, the so-called “observer” as individually required.

arrow