logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나45317
보증보험금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the allegations added by the defendant, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant advance payment was not made at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, but was made after the Defendant received the fourth progress payment, and that it should be settled at the time of the Plaintiff’s advance payment rather than the total construction amount at the time of the settlement of the advance payment 】 (1,315,702,210 won) ? (1,315,70 won). The Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into the instant guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant after the Defendant received the fourth progress payment during the instant contract, and that the Plaintiff paid the advance payment to the Defendant. However, there was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the Defendant entered into the instant advance payment with the Defendant during the instant contract, and that the Plaintiff paid the advance payment to the Defendant. In other words, in the case of the guarantee contract on advance payment, the determination on the occurrence and scope of the grounds for the payment of the advance payment should be made based on the contents of the instant subcontract agreement under the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Contract Act, and how the general parties to the instant contract should separately determine the details of the construction contract agreement.

arrow