logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.10.30 2018가단222
공사대금반환등
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 38,00,000 and annual interest rate of KRW 15% for the Plaintiff from April 11, 2018 to the date of Down payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) under which the E neighborhood living facilities and the Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) were awarded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On January 29, 2016, the unpaid construction cost was KRW 94,764,440, and there was a portion of non-construction work, such as Changho Construction, which is equivalent to KRW 33,00,000, but the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B that it will complete the construction work by February 2, 2016.

However, Defendant B did not complete the above non-execution work.

Defendant B is obligated to refund the construction cost of KRW 5,235,560 ( KRW 100,000 - KRW 94,764,440) paid in excess to the Plaintiff, KRW 5 million, and KRW 33,000,000,000 for the portion of the non-construction work.

(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act:

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with Defendant B and D on May 20, 2015, and the Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) acquired the status of the said contract from D and actually engaged in construction.

On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 94,764,440 for the unpaid construction cost, and paid KRW 100 million under the status of the non-construction work, such as Changho Construction Work, which is equivalent to KRW 33 million.

Defendant C is obligated to refund the construction cost of KRW 5,235,560 ( KRW 100,000 - KRW 94,764,440) paid in excess to the Plaintiff, KRW 5 million, and KRW 33,000,000,000 for the portion of the non-construction work.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 12 and the overall purport of the pleadings, a standard contract form for private construction works (Evidence No. 3 of A) was prepared as of June 26, 2014 for the construction cost of the Plaintiff, the contractor, the E neighborhood living facilities and new housing construction works in Seosan, the contractor, the Defendant C, as of June 26, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s foregoing around June 26, 2015.

arrow