Cases to be considered as completion of a work under a contract agreement

Even if the method of construction of pumping-out excavation works is legitimate for discovering pumping-out, and the groundwater flowing the underground rock layer was acquired as a result of the construction works, and the pumping-out amount was exceeded 400 meters a day, and the groundwater acquired was made up of 400 meters a day, and the content of salt content is high and fump is included in the standard quantity, it is reasonable and reasonable to view that the work under the contract for the construction of pumping-out excavation works is completed in light of the contents of the contract and the principle of good faith.

Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 664 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da675 delivered on April 12, 1977

Plaintiff

Macua Co.

Busan District Court Masan Branch Court (74Gahap132)

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,500,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from April 10, 1974 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

The same shall apply to the order.

On March 2, 1974, Nonparty 1’s representative Nonparty 1 concluded a contract for construction work with the Defendant Company to be paid without delay after completion of the above construction work, and on that day, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant Company received KRW 500,000,000 in money from the Defendant Company to the down payment for the down payment of KRW 300,000,000 for the daily acquisition volume of less than 300,000 for less than 40,000 for the above construction work.

The plaintiff asserted that the above non-party's construction price was 4,150,00 won or more and the non-party's construction work was 400 or more per day, and that the non-party's construction work was 50 or more per day, and that the non-party's 10-point groundwater was 5 or more, and that the non-party's 10-point groundwater was 5 or more, and that the non-party's 1-point groundwater was 5 or more, and that the non-party's 1-point groundwater was 5 or more, and that the non-party's 6-point excavation work was not 5 or more, and that the non-party's 1-point excavation work was 5 or more, and that the non-party's 1-point excavation work was 6-point and 6-meter's average 1-point pumping method was 5 or more, and that the non-party 3-party 1-party 1's 6-point excavation work was made.

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction work to the above non-party who is the contractor. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the non-party 4's testimony and the above testimony, the non-party 1 can transfer the remainder of the construction work to the plaintiff on April 30, 1974 and notify the defendant company immediately, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the construction work to the plaintiff at the rate of 5,500,000 per annum of the Civil Code from April 10, 1974 to the full payment date of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance of the construction work is reasonable, and the conclusion is unfair, and as to the bearing of the cost of the construction work, Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 89 of the Provisional Execution Act are revoked, and Article 99 of the same Act and Article 99 of the same Act are applied to the provisional execution Act.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)