logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.05.29 2017가단12585
건축설계대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a design contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant for the building C on the land (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant and the Defendant for the cost of KRW 33 million (including value-added tax).

Since the defendant completed the design service pursuant to the above contract and obtained the construction permit around November 21, 2014, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 33 million to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The other party who entered into the instant contract is not D, but is merely KRW 30 million. 2) Even if the other party to the instant contract is not D, the Defendant delegated D with the authority to conclude the instant contract and receive the price, etc., and the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to D. Thus, the Defendant is not liable to pay the price to the Defendant.

C. In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), D, as an employee of the architect office operated by the plaintiff, is not holding the architect's license in its name, the building permission for the building of this case was obtained in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant seems to have been given the building permission in advance from Eul, the party to the contract of this case is not a plaintiff but a plaintiff.

However, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the Defendant did not visit the Defendant or visit the Defendant’s office while entering into the instant contract; and (b) the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract via D through the Defendant, and the Plaintiff stated that there was no fact that the Defendant did not appear before or after entering into the instant contract.

arrow