(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.08.26 2014가합6486

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 2015.08.26 2014가합6486

전부금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff had, with respect to C, a claim of KRW 355,00,00 based on an executory notarial deed No. 29 of 2014, which was issued by a notary public with respect to C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for the attachment and assignment order (2014TTTT 6751) against “a claim up to KRW 355,00,000 out of the proceeds of the instant construction works in Ulsan-gu E (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with the Ulsan District Court as the executory debtor, and the Defendant as the garnishee, for the attachment and assignment order (2014TT 6751) on the original copy of the said notarial deed. The said court received the Plaintiff’s application on June 16, 2014, and the said decision was served on the Defendant on June 19, 2014 and September 20, 2014, respectively, and became final and conclusive on September 30, 2014.

Meanwhile, at the time when the Defendant entered into the instant contract on April 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”), the name of the contractor is F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion;

A. The name of the contractor for the instant contract is F or the actual contractor is C.

Therefore, the Defendant has the obligation to pay the construction cost to C, and the obligation exceeding KRW 355,00,000,000 out of the construction cost of KRW 900,000 has not been repaid. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the said obligation to the Plaintiff that received the entire claim amounting to KRW 355,00,000.

B. Since the other party who the Defendant contracted the instant construction work is F and C is merely the field manager who belongs to F, there is no claim for the construction cost that the Defendant is obligated to pay to C directly.

3. Determination

A. Where an actor who executes a contract has done a juristic act in the name of another person, and where the intent of the actor and the other party to whom a person is the party of the contract are to be the party of the contract, the actor or the title holder shall be determined as the party of the contract according to the same intention, and the other party's intent is not consistent

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.14 2014가합11886

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가합509434

-전주지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나7691

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.08 2019나27194

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.15 2015가단75011