(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.02.09 2020가단530378

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.02.09 2020가단530378

공사대금

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation Costs borne by the Plaintiff

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. A. Around June 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract with the Defendant, and with the Defendant’s net-si C and D worth worth KRW 150 million, and completed construction on October 9, 2019.

However, the Defendant’s construction cost amounting to the Plaintiff, KRW 30 million on June 9, 2019, and the same year.

6. 22.20 million won, per year;

7.5.20 million won, and the same year;

8. A total of KRW 90 million has not been paid for KRW 60 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 60 million under the construction contract as seen earlier and the delayed damages.

2) Defendant E, knowing that the Defendant plans to implement the said apartment remodeling project through the SNS operated by the Defendant, was in contact with the Defendant around May 2019, and was operating the interior business in the name of “F”.

of the apartment complex and the apartment complex construction will be carried out.

was made.

After that, E visited the above apartment, and then sent a quotation to the Defendant, and the Defendant contacted with E from the negotiation stage of the contract to the conclusion of the contract, as well as from the completion of the construction contract to the completion of the contract, and the Plaintiff entered into a furniture supply contract upon introduction from E in the above interior construction contract.

Therefore, since the other party to whom the defendant entered into the interior contract is called E, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is a party to the said construction contract is without merit.

B. The interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning which the parties have granted to the act of indicating it, and in the event there is an issue of the parties’ intention in respect of the interpretation of the juristic act, it is intended to achieve by the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background of such juristic act, and the juristic act.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.03.19 2014고단4231

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.24 2012고정5217

-전주지방법원 2014.02.20 2012고단1446

-수원지방법원 2014.03.26 2012고단4955

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.04.12 2015고단1241