(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016가단8272

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016가단8272

공사대금

Text

1. Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 91,80,000 and 15% per annum from July 13, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for private construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant C’s representative director and Defendant B’s auditor D, with the payment of construction cost of KRW 157,80,000,000 in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the contract term of contract from October 20, 2015 to November 2, 2015.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with D, an apparent agent beyond the legitimate authority or authority of Defendant B; and (b) the Plaintiff confirmed the conclusion of the instant contract even if D, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B was liable for the payment of KRW 91,80,000, which is the construction cost due under the instant contract, and the delay damages therefor, against Defendant B; (b) Defendant B merely contracted the instant construction to Defendant C, and that there was no fact that the instant contract was entered into with the Plaintiff.

C. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3 of the 1 by proxy, it can be acknowledged that D had the seal imprint of the Defendant B at the time of entering into the instant contract, and that D had the seal imprint of the Defendant B as the auditor from July 9, 2014. However, the above fact of recognition alone is difficult to deem that D entered into the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant B at the time of entering into the instant contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 2-4, Defendant B may recognize the fact that the instant construction was contracted to Defendant C and the relevant construction cost was paid.

Therefore, it is true.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제3호

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.13 2020가단7309

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.12.03 2014가합337

-서울남부지방법원 2013.04.09 2012가합9080

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.12 2013가합62235

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.07.22 2013가합5346