logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.18 2015가합83
공사대금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 163,880,00 and KRW 80,180,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 83,70,000 from January 1, 2012.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an electrical construction business operator, has been entering into a subcontract for electrical construction with the Defendant who performed remodeling works for a childcare center from around 2007 to 2013.

B. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant drafted a certificate of KRW 84,180,000 for the unpaid construction cost from 2007 to 2011, and 95,700,000 for the period from 2012 to 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff was partially paid the construction cost, and the Defendant sought payment of KRW 80,180,000 for the unpaid construction cost from 2007 to 2011, and KRW 83,700,000 for the unpaid construction cost from 2012 to 2013, as well as the delayed payment of KRW 163,880,00 for the delayed payment.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the subject who entered into a subcontract construction contract with the Plaintiff from 2012 to 2013 is not the Defendant but C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and that the unpaid construction cost obligation from 2012 to 2013 is also borne by C, and that the Defendant does not bear any burden.

3. Determination

A. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in evidence Nos. 4 and 6, ① the Defendant was the representative of C from June 2013, ② the Defendant prepared a written confirmation of the attempted construction amount from March 5, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and ② the Defendant prepared a written confirmation of the intended construction amount from March 5, 2014 to the Plaintiff, as well as the written confirmation of the construction amount from 2007 to 2011 to 2013 in the name of the Defendant’s individual, and was not prepared in the name of C, ③ Won, and the Defendant concluded an electrical construction subcontract verbally, and thus, the Plaintiff appears to have concluded a contract as the Defendant’s individual for the period of 2011, rather than deeming that the Defendant concluded a contract as the representative of C.

arrow