(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.10.21 2013가단18898

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) 제주지방법원 2014.10.21 2013가단18898

공사대금

Text

1. Defendant B shall pay 21,11,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 1, 2013 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Saur Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) received a new construction of the Search Committee shopping center at Jeju.

B. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from Defendant B for a waterproof Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) with the construction cost of KRW 36 million.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 14,889,000 out of the instant construction cost and was not repaid the remainder of KRW 21,111,00,000, and was subject to a decision of provisional seizure against the Defendant B’s claim amounting to KRW 21,111,00,000 (hereinafter “provisional seizure”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (Evidence No. 3 is presumed to have been established by the recognition of the stamp image part of defendant B, and the defendant B claims that the alteration was made, but it is not sufficient to recognize the alteration only with the statement No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant B's alteration assertion is without merit) and Eul's statement No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction price of this case KRW 21,111,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2013 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination as to the Defendant Company entered into a contract with the Defendant Company to accept the instant construction cost of KRW 36 million with the Defendant Company, and the Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation. However, as to the fact that the Defendant Company subcontracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is

C. Defendant B’s reimbursement.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.03.11 2015가단226628

-대구지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가단116474

-부산고등법원 2016.01.28 2015나2126

-광주지방법원영광군법원 2017.10.13 2017가단5006

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.29 2014가합8216