logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2014.06.26 2013가합1282
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,800,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 4, 2013 to June 26, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic fact-finding construction name: The construction period for the extension of a military hospital from November 10, 200 to May 31, 2010: the contract amount of KRW 1,900,000: the warranty period of defect liability of KRW 1,90,000: the warranty period of defect liability shall be in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Other matters: the construction cost for the medical gas and operation room shall be settled later. The construction cost for the elevator construction, the objects of construction excluded from consultation, the interior, and the works attached to the removal work shall be borne by the project owner;

In principle, additional settlement shall be made for the construction requested for change of construction.

On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the extension of a hospital (hereinafter “instant construction”) as a juristic person operating a tea hospital in the Gunsan-si 830-3, which is a juristic person operating the tea hospital, and its main contents are as follows:

B. In accordance with the above contract, the Defendant completed the instant construction work on July 2010 after doing so.

(C) The building extended by the Defendant for construction of the instant case is located in the hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “ Hospital New Buildings”).

이 사건 공사가 완료된 때로부터 약 1년이 지난 2011. 7. 11. 병원 신축 건물 지하 1층에서 침수피해(이하 ‘이 사건 침수피해’라 한다)가 발생하였는데, 이는 병원 신축 건물에서 건물 밖 공공하수관으로 연결되는 오수파이프가 건물 외벽을 통과하는 부분 주위에 시멘트와 방수액을 혼합하여 메운 부분이 빗물 등에 의해 밀려 들어오는 등으로 유실되어 그 유실된 부분을 통해 빗물 등이 들어온 것이었고, 위와 같은 침수 피해로 인해 지하 1층에 있던 CT실, MRICT 조정실, 기계실, MRI 쉴드룸 출입구 바닥에 순차적으로 물이 찼다.

In this regard, the plaintiff took measures such as using water or washing water through his employees, and the defendant, who was contacted by the plaintiff, was under the emergency repair work. D.

On March 2013, the plaintiff is aware that there was a fact of artificial strawing in the MIM shooting images and is the maintenance business of MIM machinery.

arrow