(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.09.06 2017나2489 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2018.09.06 2017나2489

공사대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a business operator who runs a construction business under the trade name D, and the defendant is the representative of the Dong of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

B. On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the installation of the wall waterproofing construction of the instant apartment in the KRW 16.5 million (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the removal of the floor, KRW 15.4 million for painting construction; KRW 15.4 million for the removal of the floor; KRW 15.4 million for the rooftop waterproof construction; KRW 16.5 million for each construction period; around May 27, 2013 to July 31, 2013; and around June 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an additional contract for the installation of the X-cell pipeline and the installation of the door door (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant construction”) and completed each of the instant construction around July 2013.

C. On October 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not pay part of the construction cost of the instant case to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 25 million out of the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 25 million.

B. As to this, the defendant tried to prepare documents prepared by the defendant in the process of confirming the unpaid construction price of each of the construction works of this case after confirming the specific amount of unpaid construction price, but he/she was forced by the plaintiff, and thus, he/she must have no choice but to cancel it. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Next, among each of the instant works, the Defendant did not complete or completed a rooftop waterproof Work and a rooftop X-gu pipeline installation work.

Even in the rooftop waterproof construction works, water leakage is generated.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단28741

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.10 2015나624

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.11 2016가합110961

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.24 2018가단8815

-서울서부지방법원 2014.12.18 2013가합30998