logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2020.11.17 2020가단103922
공사대금
Text

All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

(b) Costs of lawsuit;

Reasons

1. Around September 2019, the Plaintiff’s summary of the instant case: (a) determined the Defendant’s “fire pipeline and ethylization (including sanitary pipes and ethyls) construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among the construction works of the C Research Institute as the price of KRW 90,000,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the main contents of the instant construction works with an order form (Evidence A No. 1) in the attached Form without preparing a separate form of contract; or (c) recognized the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that even though the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, it did not receive the remainder of KRW 29,700,000 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant at the end of January 2020, and sought payment of the same amount as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff completed the instant construction

1) The burden of assertion and proof on the "completion" of the work which is the object of a contract lies on the contractor who seeks payment of remuneration for the result of the work. In addition, if the work is discontinued and the last process of the scheduled work is not completed, it shall be deemed that the work has not been completed. However, if the work is completed throughout the last process of the original scheduled work and the main structure has been completed as agreed and the work has to be completed in accordance with social norms, it shall be interpreted that the work is completed, but it is nothing more than that there is any defect in the object. Whether the last process of the scheduled work has been completed must be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract and the good faith principle of the work concerned without the contractor's assertion or the contractor's completion inspection conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da32986, Sep. 30, 1994; 97Da23150, Oct. 10, 1997).

arrow