(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가합542173

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가합542173

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a contract between the Defendant and the construction of each multi-family house on the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Crote and Drote ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and the construction of each multi-family house on the ground of the said building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”); ① the construction cost of the interior works on the above Crote ground shall be KRW 117,000,000 (excluding value-added tax); ② the construction cost of the interior works on the above Crote ground shall be KRW 153,00,000 (excluding value-added tax); ③ the construction period of each of the above construction works shall be determined from March 3, 2015 to June 2015; and the Plaintiff drafted a contract for construction works on each of the above Crote construction works (hereinafter referred to as “the instant interior works”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) by referring to the contract under the said contract.

On July 28, 2015, approval for the use of the instant building was granted around July 28, 2015.

C. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating the amount of KRW 270,000,000 on the part of the Plaintiff, the recipient of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the supply value to the Defendant, and a tax return was filed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the conclusion of the instant contract, the instant contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the approval for the use of the instant building was granted, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the construction cost and the value-added tax pursuant to the instant contract, as well as the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant asserts that the contract of this case is null and void by means of false representation in conspiracy, and thus, I examine this issue. 2) The defendant's statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as to this issue is the whole purport of the pleading.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.15 2019가단5296564

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가합586562

-부산지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단324966

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2015가단177493

-광주지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단508996