(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나104232

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) 대전지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나104232

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, with respect to KRW 2,100,000 and KRW 1,200,000 among the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff, from December 17, 2015.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 24, 2015 with respect to the laundry of a hospital between May 1, 2015 and April 30, 2017 with respect to the laundry of a hospital (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant managing the relevant infant department, that the contract period was two years from May 1, 2015 to April 30, and that 600,000 won per month for the service cost was not disputed between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. After the conclusion of the above contract, the Plaintiff immediately agreed to raise the monthly service cost of KRW 900,000,000. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1430,000 from the Defendant for the laundry service and was notified on November 2, 2015 to unilaterally cancel the laundry contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages that the Plaintiff could not obtain KRW 16,20,000 per month for the remaining 18 months of the contract period.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the above-paid service costs and the amount of damages, as well as damages for delay of KRW 16.2 million.

B. The reason why the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the contract is that the Plaintiff did not cleanly dispose of the laundry and did not observe the schedule of collection and delivery of the laundry. Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered losses.

Even if the damage was incurred, the defendant cannot be held liable for such damage.

In addition, the service price was increased by KRW 900,000 from July 2015, and the defendant paid all the service price to the plaintiff, excluding KRW 300,000,000 from October 2015.

3. Determination

(a) evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the unpaid service costs

In full view of the purport of each statement and all the arguments, the Plaintiff first claimed KRW 90,000 to the Defendant from May 31, 2015.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.07 2015가합580218

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.07.13 2017가단87452

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.08.10 2016가단81465

-수원지방법원 2016.08.24 2015가단134883

-수원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나67998