logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.09 2017나6856
식사대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. As to the instant construction project, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide meals at a construction site, and the Plaintiff provided meals to the members of the instant construction site from August 2016 to January 2017.

C. The total amount of food that the Plaintiff provided to the figures of the instant construction site is KRW 9,777,200.

The plaintiff was paid KRW 86,616,200 among the above food units by the defendant and the Kudong Construction, but the remaining food units of KRW 13,161,00 have not been paid.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 13,161,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Of the costs of meals provided by the Plaintiff, the part that the Defendant is liable for is merely KRW 5,075,400 for meals provided to the employees directly responsible for the Defendant. The Defendant has already paid the Plaintiff the amount exceeding the above amount. According to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, according to the judgment of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant agreed to include the fact that, among the instant construction works, the steel processing and assembly works, non-building and dismantling works, concrete building works, etc. among the instant construction works, the Defendant re-subcontracted construction works to D around July 20, 2016, and the fact that each sub-subcontracted construction works to D around July 20, 2016, the Defendant at the time of each sub-subcontract, B, D and sub-subcontracts as a sub-subcontract.

However, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence No. 5.

arrow