(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.15 2015가단25640

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.15 2015가단25640

용역대금

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) subcontracted to B the construction period from May 18, 2015 to December 14, 2015; and (b) the construction cost of KRW 113,593,100 (excluding value-added tax) among the traffic center and ancillary building improvement projects (hereinafter “instant construction projects”); and (c) the Defendant subcontracted to B the construction period from May 18, 2015 to December 14, 2015.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to receive necessary labor services from the instant construction work.

C. According to the foregoing agreement, the Plaintiff provided the instant construction work with necessary labor from May 26, 2015 to July 7, 2015, and agreed on July 11, 2015 with B and its labor cost of KRW 45,100,000.

Meanwhile, the Defendant directly paid the Plaintiff KRW 9,00,000,000 on July 1, 2015 and KRW 15,000,00 on the 13th day of the same month, among the labor cost to be paid by B following the confirmation by B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, based on the labor provision agreement, provided the required labor for the Defendant. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining labor cost of KRW 21,100,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff was requested to provide labor from B, and it is only recognized that the plaintiff provided labor necessary for the construction of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant entered into an agreement for direct labor provision with the plaintiff or received a request for labor provision from the plaintiff (the plaintiff is also subject to the direction and supervision of the defendant representative director or employees belonging to the defendant at the construction site, and it is recognized that there was no direct agreement with the defendant). The plaintiff's claim for labor cost payment against the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff and the defendant directly entered into a contract

(b) the name holder;

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.09 2016나18514

-인천지방법원 2016.05.04 2014가단39205

-울산지방법원 2015.07.17 2015가단5803

-대구지방법원 2017.09.21 2016나10917

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.05.15 2018가단55376