위약금 등
1. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the incidental appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed, respectively.
2. Costs of appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts common to the instant counterclaim is as follows: “Defendant B” is dismissed as “Codefendant B of the first instance trial”; “performance material” from the fourth decision of the first instance to “performance material” is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the case where “performance material” is admitted as “performance material.”
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) the Plaintiff entered into the instant design contract with the Defendant operating the “C”, and the Defendant sent the notice of termination given due to nonperformance to the Defendant on June 21, 2012 due to the Defendant’s failure to perform its duty to supply the outcome under the instant design contract. As such, the instant design contract was lawfully rescinded on June 22, 2012, upon receipt of the notice of termination by the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment paid by the Plaintiff, the sum of KRW 30,88 million, as the restitution following the cancellation of the instant design contract.
The Defendant filed a counterclaim with the Defendant, on May 15, 2012, completed the design service in accordance with the design agreement and the design modification terms of the instant design agreement. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff performed all the services specified in the contract, including supplying design drawings, and completed the modified design as required by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant totaling KRW 35,179,000,000,000, including the remainder of the design agreement of this case and the additional design cost of KRW 13.2 million and the additional design cost of KRW 14.5 million, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 15, 2012 to the time of submission of the petition of appeal.
나. 판단 ⑴ 본반소에 공통되는 쟁점에 관한 판단 - 원피고간 이 사건 설계계약의 묵시적 합의해지 여부 ㈎ 계약이 합의해지되기 위하여는 일반적으로 계약이 성립하는 경우와 마찬가지로 계약의 청약과...