(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.05 2016나2065641

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) 서울고등법원 2019.07.05 2016나2065641

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance ("the part of the judgment of the second instance") except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the underlying facts is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "attached Form 1" in attached Form 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be raised in attached Form 1.

The second page 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "(2)" or "(3)(4)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2

In Part 3 of the third decision of the first instance, the phrase "general conditions" (hereinafter referred to as "general conditions of this case") shall be added to the following.

Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance states "Scark" in Part 2 of the decision of the court of first instance as "by the Regulations," and part 3 of the same Table as " April 30, 2013," respectively.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was: (a) the completion period of the instant construction contract was extended from August 13, 2013 to December 31, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,085,852,452 to the indirect construction cost.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of indirect construction cost, which is significant in accordance with the instant construction contract, to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,085,852,452, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. Standard 1) The Act on Contracts to Which the former State is a Party (amended by Act No. 11377, Mar. 21, 2012; hereinafter “State Contract Act”) on the basis of determining whether the obligation to adjust the contract price arises within a long-term continuing contract due to the extension of the construction period.

Article 21 "The head of each central government agency or the public official in charge of contracts" shall maintain a long-term contract, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if it is necessary to maintain a contract for several consecutive years in its nature, such as lease, transportation, storage, electricity, gas supply, or

참조조문

-국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2018.11.28 2018나13002

-서울고등법원 2016.09.29 2016누36484

-서울고등법원 2020.11.18 2020나2015735

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.16 2017나77758

-서울고등법원 2022. 10. 19. 선고 2022나2021970 판결