logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.08 2016가합1936
공사대금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 95,543,338 and its KRW 39,00,000 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) from February 7, 2014.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) concluded on January 7, 2012 that, for the construction of 40 units of the instant building (hereinafter “instant new construction construction”) on the land outside D and nine parcels of land in Chungcheongnam-si (E, F, G, H, I, and I; hereinafter “instant Dong”); on January 7, 2012, the J purchased eight parcels of the said land from J, and completed the instant building in lieu of paying the purchase price, and the said building was completed to acquire the ownership of five households among the instant buildings. On February 2, 2012, K and L were the owners of the remaining two parcels of land, and the ownership of two households among the instant buildings was transferred in lieu of paying the purchase price.

B. C, while borrowing KRW 300 million from J as the construction cost and carrying out the new construction of the instant case, concluded an investment contract with the Defendant, on November 6, 2012, stating that the construction of the instant building shall be completed by November 6, 2013, instead of receiving an investment of KRW 400 million from the Defendant, and the Defendant shall return the total amount of KRW 700 million including the amount invested, and as a security, provide the Defendant with the instant Fdong, and “if the construction is suspended for more than one month without any special reason, the Defendant shall be liable for the said failure and waive all rights and authorities without any consideration.”

Around that time, the Defendant delivered KRW 400 million to C through M, who is a branch under the above investment contract.

C. On November 26, 2012, C does not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff (N is not an entity under the name of the Plaintiff, but an entity that is not an entity under the name of the Plaintiff, and the substantial party to the contract entered into under the name of theO is the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the substantive party to the N orO contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (see, e.g., Plaintiff’s preparatory document as of January 31, 2018 and Defendant’s preparatory document as of February 1, 2018), and the entire five joints of the instant new construction works.

arrow