logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.25 2016나8976
물품대금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of selling construction materials, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the construction business.

B. Around March 2013, the Defendant borrowed the name of the Dasan Island and received civil engineering works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from B among the projects for restoring water and marine wetlands in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

C. On May 2013, the Plaintiff supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 10,937,190 (including value-added tax) to the instant construction site.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that on April 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of construction materials with D who is the Defendant’s site manager, and supplied construction materials at the instant construction site. Even if D is not the Defendant’s site manager, the Defendant is liable for expressive representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price of the materials KRW 10,937,190, and damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendant ordered the instant construction, but (the Defendant changed the Defendant’s representative director’s assertion that E was awarded orders in the preparatory brief dated December 16, 2016) did not remain, and D transferred all of the rights, etc. related to the instant construction to D or Dasan Construction (D was employed as the site director of the instant construction) on March 2013 and independently carried out the instant construction, it asserts that the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the price of materials to the Plaintiff.

3. The On-site director of the construction company is a person who generally takes charge of the work related to the work of construction at a specified construction site. Thus, it is reasonable to view that an employee delegated with a specific type of work or a specific matter under Article 15 of the Commercial Act has a partial comprehensive power of attorney regarding the work.

. At the construction site:

arrow