logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.03.26 2014가합600
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with C for the construction of a new building located in D (hereinafter “instant construction”) at Jeju-si, which is the Defendant’s agent, and completed the said construction on January 27, 2014, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost of KRW 157,418,80 and damages for delay.

Even if C had not been granted the power of representation for the conclusion of the construction contract by the Defendant

Even if C entered into a construction contract for the construction of a new house to be residing by the Defendant as the Defendant’s Silju, and as the Plaintiff believed that C had the authority to conclude a construction contract on behalf of the Defendant, and justifiable grounds exist for the Plaintiff to believe such contract, the Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Judgment

First, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant granted C the right of representation on the basis of each testimony of health team, witness E and F with respect to whether the Defendant granted C the right of representation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, as to whether the Defendant bears the burden of expression agency pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff believed that C has the authority to conclude a construction contract on behalf of the Defendant and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the instant construction work is a new construction of the Defendant’s house. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers) and the entire arguments, Eul is a joint guarantor, and Eul is a joint guarantor, and the defendant is a subcontractor in a document related to the payment details of the company related to the construction of this case.

arrow