logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.02.12 2019가단205779
하도급공사대금 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant contracted the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F New Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) to Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). On November 3, 2017, the fact that Nonparty Co. subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2017 during the instant construction project is that the Plaintiff subcontracted the pressing and glass construction project has no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2. On November 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) drafted a direct payment agreement between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant that the Defendant would pay the construction price to the Plaintiff, a subcontractor; (b) the Plaintiff completed the sewage supply work by August 27, 2018; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the unpaid construction price of KRW 97,417,00 to the Plaintiff.

3. We examine the judgment. The plaintiff submitted only a copy of the subcontract consideration agreement (Evidence A 2) without submitting the original copy of the subcontract consideration agreement in this case, and according to the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 1, the date of preparation of evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 1 stated as "No. 2017 (11 (7) 7 (day)" as "the date of preparation of evidence No. 2017 (day)". On the other hand, at the time when the plaintiff applied for provisional seizure against the defendant before filing the lawsuit in this case with the right to claim construction price of KRW 97,417,00 against the defendant as preserved claim (this court No. 2018Kadan2131) as evidence No. 3 as of the date of filing of the provisional seizure against real estate (this court No. 2018Kadan2131), it is difficult to recognize that the agreement No. 5 was written as evidence No. 1 to No. 271, Nov. 8, 2017.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5 through 8, 10, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the non-party company is from November 2017 to August 2018.

arrow