(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나2522

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나2522

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant received a contract from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Urban Residential Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “C”) for the construction cost of KRW 450 million (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction period from July 17, 2017 to January 20, 2018.

B. The Plaintiff received a subcontract for construction cost of eight million won from the Defendant for a parking lot among the instant interior works (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and completed the instant construction work from December 22, 2017 to December 24, 201.

On December 23, 2017, the Defendant paid 4 million won out of the construction price of the instant case to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not pay 4,80,000 won, including value-added tax, to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted that, after receiving the instant interior work payment from C, the Defendant paid 4,80,000 won to the Plaintiff after receiving the said interior work payment, and that, as the instant construction work payment was not paid by C, the due date for the instant construction

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of 4.8 million won of the construction payment of the instant case after receiving the payment of the construction payment from the Plaintiff and the Defendant after having received the payment of the price for the interior of the instant interior work from C. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the payment period of the construction cost of this case has been specially determined, and the payment obligation of the construction cost of this case is a debt with no fixed payment period, and the construction work of this case has been completed, and the payment period of this case has arrived at the date the defendant requested its performance

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.02 2018나4170

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2019가단5138873

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.28 2017가단5122676

-부산지방법원 2014.05.01 2013가합7618