logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.09.21 2017다222542
용역비
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s primary claim based on its stated reasoning is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of damages

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim that the amount equivalent to personnel expenses should be included in the instant damages on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the language and text of

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and the Defendant appears to have failed to properly set the decision-making process of the Defendant in relation to the direction of the project, and rather, the Defendant made an unreasonable demand for the Plaintiff, who exclusively provided support for the implementation of the project, such as deposit of 10% of compensation money for the land for shareholders, and under such circumstances, it appears that there were considerable limitations on the Plaintiff’s implementation of support duties concerning the selection of a contractor, the selection of a financial institution, and the selection and financing of funds.

arrow