(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가합9485

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가합9485

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The 11 owner, including the defendant, of the building including the owner of the building, was resolved to remove the Dogra in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 2003 to newly construct two multi-households composed of 18 households, a sectionally partitioned building on the ground (hereinafter “instant Dogra”), and obtained new construction permission from the head of Gwanak-gu Office on June 28, 2003.

B. On October 2004, 11 owners, including the Defendant, concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the main contents that, from October 7, 2004, the construction period will be September 14, 2005, the ten-month period from October 7, 2004 to September 14, 2005, and part of the construction amount shall be the shares of reconstruction partners, and the remainder shall be seven households in lieu of the payment of the construction amount to E or to a third party designated by E (hereinafter “the instant contract”).

C. E entered into a subcontract for each part of the construction work, such as entrusting the type mold and metal construction to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Appointed”).

E, around June 21, 2006, written an agreement that transfers all of the contractor status under the instant contract to F on the ground of the economic conditions and the diseases, such as high blood pressure, etc., and that the same year.

8. Around 17. Around 17.m., the Defendant notified the transfer.

E. Around August 2006, E was completed, and around 2008, the subcontractor, including the Plaintiff and the selector (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) who did not receive the construction cost from F, filed a lawsuit claiming construction cost (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Ga18651) against the owner of the building including the Defendant, and the owner of the building including the Defendant paid the amount according to the compulsory adjustment decision or the written decision to the subcontractor.

F. The Plaintiff et al. shall be the third obligor around November 2013 and the Seoul Western District Court.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2015나54638

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가단5074889

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.19 2015나14135

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.14 2013가합45292

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.19 2014가단17995