logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.04.26 2018가단10835
건물등철거
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On April 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendants for the construction of a three-story neighborhood living facility on the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground (hereinafter “instant new construction project”). At the time, the removal of the existing building was immediately difficult to estimate due to the surrounding conditions of the construction site, and then settled personnel expenses, etc. after the removal, the Plaintiff agreed to claim against the Defendants separate from the construction cost of the instant new construction project.

Therefore, the Plaintiff removed existing buildings through the 15-day process prior to the instant new construction work, and the cost of removal is KRW 61,787,440 (Evidence A4). Thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money from the Defendants.

2. In a judgment on a civil case, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment on other civil cases, the facts established in the already established civil cases shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without a reasonable reason. In particular, there are the same facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties to the dispute and form the basis of the dispute, but it is more so where a new claim can be filed as a result which does not conflict with the res judicata.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329 Decided September 24, 2009). In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s materials submitted to this court are sufficient to reverse the facts acknowledged in the final judgment of the relevant case, and to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant new construction contract or removal contract, or that the removal corporation is separate from the new construction project of this case, and that the Defendants agreed to pay the removal price separately to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

arrow