(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2015.06.03 2014가단3535

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) 대구지방법원안동지원 2015.06.03 2014가단3535

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to enter into a 320 million won contract for the pelvis construction among the studio construction of the studio construction of the D 4th floor building in a permanent residence with the Defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction on March 18, 2014, but the Defendant paid KRW 50 million out of the construction cost.

B. The Defendant concluded a contract with Defendant C and had C construct the instant building, and did not conclude a direct contract with the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant assumed that the Defendant was the party to the contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not pay the subcontractor the subcontract price to the subcontractor of the instant construction, and the subcontractor did not properly pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor of the instant construction, and upon the Plaintiff’s consent, C and the Defendant paid the subcontractor the contract price directly with the subcontractor.

Therefore, the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff remains no longer.

2. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant was a party to the contract with the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers), and Nos. 14-5, the Defendant purchased the site of the instant building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 28, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 9, 2014. The fact that part of the construction price of the instant building was transferred to the Plaintiff from the account in the name of the Defendant, but the fact that some of the construction price of the instant case was transferred to the Plaintiff from the account in the name of the Defendant is recognized, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was the party who entered into the contract with the Plaintiff

Rather, E/F given a subcontract for a part of the instant construction work from the Plaintiff was present at this court as a witness, and asked to recover C when it did not receive the subcontract price from the Plaintiff, and subject to the Plaintiff’s consent.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나9019

-대법원 2016.9.23.선고 2015다201107 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.01.11 2015나2041280

-서울고등법원 2016.11.10 2016나2031518

-서울고등법원 2016.05.18 2015나2052211