(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018가단250050

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018가단250050

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants owned two buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) on the five lots, including Incheon-gun D, etc., and entered into a contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on January 2015 to obtain authorization for the instant building as a welfare facility for the elderly and children, and to entrust remodeling construction with the said building.

B. On January 2015, E subcontracted the relevant building remodeling construction to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, while continuing the subcontracted construction, has a claim for the construction cost of KRW 76,641,240 in E.

C. E holds a claim for the construction cost of at least 76,641,240 won against the Defendants, and it does not exercise its claim and does not have any other financial capacity at present. In order to preserve the claim for the construction cost to E, the Plaintiff shall exercise in subrogation the claim for the construction cost against the Defendants.

2. Comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that E has a claim for construction cost against the Defendants (right of subrogation by the Plaintiff’s assertion).

[Attachment, according to each description of the “Delegation and Consent Form” (Evidence 1) and “Written Consent to Use of Land,” and “Written Consent to Delegation” (Evidence 7) in the name of the Defendant, the Defendants merely purported to the effect that the Defendants consented to the alteration of the use of the instant building and the business of welfare facilities for older persons and children,” or that the Defendants consented to the alteration and extension of the use of the instant building and site for the instant building and site. It does not constitute a contract for the remodeling construction with E or a contract for the remodeling construction cost for the instant building. The remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff pertains to the content that the Plaintiff performed the construction by entering into a contract with E (the Plaintiff’s claims for compensation).

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit and without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.01.22 2014나8693

-수원지방법원 2017.09.12 2017가합12885 (1)

-부산지방법원 2013.09.25 2012고단10711

-대구지방법원 2015.05.29 2014가합203476

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2018고단217