logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.16 2016나2042259
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

o The following shall be added to the last sentence of the first instance judgment on the fifth page.

In addition, the performance letter dated 20, 2014, stating that the rate of delayed compensation is 3/1,000 to 5/1,000 instead of delaying the delivery date, and the contract (Evidence A3) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 2, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated the rate of delay compensation 3/1,00, while the contract (Evidence A3) between the Defendant and the Defendant on March 24, 2014 claimed that the Defendant is true does not state the rate of delay compensation.

o The first instance court's 6th to 6th 5th 7th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2

1) According to the facts established prior to the cancellation of the instant contract, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on May 8, 2015 for a reasonable period of time up to May 22, 2015, and the Defendant completed the manufacture and supply of the instant machinery. The fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of performance was delivered to the Defendant on July 17, 2015 is apparent in the record. Therefore, the Defendant’s duty to restore the instant contract was lawfully rescinded on July 17, 2015, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, as to the Plaintiff’s restitution of KRW 220,000,000, out of them, and KRW 100,000,000,000,000 after the date of payment, and each of them was sought by the Plaintiff on March 29, 2014 through the date of payment, and KRW 10,200,000,000.

arrow