(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.02.03 2014가단13956

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.02.03 2014가단13956

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2012, the Defendant decided to newly construct the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and, on December 18, 2012, written a contract between the present comprehensive construction company for the present citizens (hereinafter “former comprehensive construction”) with the Defendant and the contractor, the contractor, the contractor, and the construction cost of KRW 850,000,00 (hereinafter “the instant new construction”).

B. Around January 2013, the Plaintiff commenced the instant new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and completed the instant construction works around June 2013.

C. The instant building was completed around June 2013, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation in its name on July 31, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the key issue is that the Plaintiff, around December 2012, contracted the instant facility works with the Defendant as KRW 39,00,000,000, and completed the said facility works around August 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should be paid the remainder of KRW 31,00,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 8,00,000 already paid from the said amount from KRW 39,00,000 and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant did not conclude a contract with the plaintiff, and did not claim that the contract was entered into on the same basis as the current comprehensive construction and the contract of this case.

Therefore, the issues of this case are whether a contract for the facility works of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is concluded.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant facility project around June 2012 is as seen earlier.

In addition, in full view of the statement No. 2, witness C, and witness testimony of each part of the defendant's testimony, E, a cohabitant of the defendant around December 2012, which is the father of the plaintiff and C engaged in electrical construction business with F, the father of the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.01.23 2014나16250

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.05.30 2015가단16389

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.13 2017가합2326

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.06.14 2018가단6370

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.07 2013가합35948