beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.09 2019가단5000312

손해배상(기)

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 May 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the construction of food processing plants on the E and F block ground in the Daegu-gun Complex (hereinafter “instant construction”); and (b) concluded a modified contract thereafter (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (c) the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project, although there were non-construction parts, etc.

B. On December 30, 2014, Nonparty Company filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”) with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2014Gahap5808 on December 30, 2014, and the grounds for the claim were as follows: “(i) as the Defendant had a written estimate that the amount would normally be unrefised, the Nonparty Company would be liable to pay the construction cost corresponding thereto and incurred losses equivalent to the above construction cost; (ii) the Plaintiff did not install a spathn and did not receive the payment for the said construction cost despite having decided to install the spathn spathn spathr and received the payment for it; and (iii) the Nonparty Company, who is not aware of this, concluded the construction contract with another company and incurred damages equivalent to the above construction cost.

C. On June 28, 2018, the above court was insufficient to acknowledge the allegation of the non-party company that the construction cost of the said quotation was unfairly unrefised solely on the appraiser’s written appraisal, written appraisal, and written supplementary statement with regard to the above ① on June 28, 2018, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. With regard to the above ②, the testimony of appraiser’s appraiser’s appraisal, and the witness’s testimony was included in the construction of a s

The plaintiff or the plaintiff could not be deemed as deceiving the non-party company, and the non-party company's allegation is rejected on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it: Provided, That part of the claim for damages in lieu of the defect repair of the non-party company is accepted, but