logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.02.16 2015나2918
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the case as stated in the following Paragraph 2, thereby citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 3rd through 6th of the judgment of the first instance shall be written in the following manner:

C. In addition to the construction work of the instant equipment, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for the installation work of KRW 10,000 (value-added tax separately) to the Hyundai Network System; KRW 150,000,000 (value-added tax separate); ② in accordance with the order of February 13, 2012, in the amount of KRW 7,000 (value-added tax separate); ③ in accordance with the order of February 13, 201, in the amount of KRW 10,000 (value-added tax separate); and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 (value-added tax separate); and the Plaintiff paid the said additional construction work to Hyundai System; ② in the amount of KRW 150,000 (value-added tax separately); ② in the case of the said construction work; ② in the amount of KRW 30,00,000; and ③ in the case of the said construction work, the Defendant paid the said additional construction work cost under the order of February 13, 20100.

The 6th to 7th shall be deleted from 6th to 6th 15th 7th , and the following shall be added to the place:

5 The Plaintiff asserted that the construction of the instant equipment was completed on August 30, 201, and thereafter, the additional construction was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the additional construction is a construction directly related to the construction of the instant equipment. After the contract for the construction of the instant equipment, the Plaintiff was drafted against the modern wave system against both the Defendant’s orders, etc. issued on December 12, 201 after the contract for the construction of the instant equipment, and accordingly, the Defendant completed the modern wave system on December 19, 201.

arrow