(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.24 2017나31603

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.24 2017나31603

지체상금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim) who exceeds the following money among the main part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasons for the court’s explanation is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts to be cited or added in the following paragraph (2).

2. Parts to be dried or added;

(a) Parts 3 through 16 of the judgment of the first instance court "(1)" shall be added to the following:

“(1) According to the above facts, the Defendant was unable to complete the instant construction project within the period specified in the instant contract. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for delay as prescribed in the instant contract. Specifically, the Defendant is obligated to complete the instant construction project on June 7, 2014, which was commenced from August 7, 2013 to October 2, 2014 pursuant to the instant contract and the agreement, and the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for delay equivalent to 165,490,000 (price 1,235,000,000,000 and delay compensation corresponding to 178 days from January 4, 2014 to February 16, 2014, which was actually delivered by the Defendant, from June 8, 2014 to December 2, 2014, which was approved by the Plaintiff.

(b)in the sixth and thirteenth sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

"(3) In cases where there is an agreement on deposit for performance of contract and liquidated damages, it is reasonable to see that deposit for performance of contract has the nature of penalty for breach of contract or penalty, and the liquidated damages for delay shall be deemed as liquidated damages. Also, under Article 398 (2) of the Civil Act, in cases where the estimated amount of damages for delay is unduly excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages to be inappropriate, and it is interpreted that the estimated amount of damages for such time means the total amount of the estimated amount of damages for delay. Therefore, whether there is

참조조문

-민법 제398조 제2항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단241450

-대법원 1996. 4. 26. 선고 95다11436 판결

-대법원 1997. 10. 28. 선고 97다21932 판결

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.11 2017가단110450

-부산고등법원 2017.01.26 2016나1601