(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나58698

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) 창원지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나58698

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added in the trial, and as such, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even in light of the fact that, in a separate lawsuit filed by H seeking the payment of the construction cost against the Defendant, the Defendant acknowledged a direct payment agreement with H, and that, in the absence of a direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there was no reason to suspend the demonstration and resume the construction.

However, even according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 7, the defendant only stated that "the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay the remainder after deducting value-added tax, etc. from the amount because H received a written confirmation of KRW 85,750,000 of the unpaid construction cost," in the appellate court of the case of claim for the construction cost which the defendant raised by the above Eul (the Changwon District Court 2018Na58629). Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a direct payment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case where the plaintiff did not receive a written confirmation of the construction cost unpaid from D Co., Ltd.

In addition, even if considering the plaintiff's resumption of construction, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the direct non-assignment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2014.08.26 2013가단4572

-대전지방법원 2018.06.29 2017나110258

-대구지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단5900

-전주지방법원 2018.08.24 2017나12519

-대전지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나107782