(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.03.30 2015나10796

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) 광주지방법원 2016.03.30 2015나10796

소각처리비 등

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul evidence No. 1, the Defendant: (a) on August 2014, the Defendant: (b) entrusted the Defendant’s workplace (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Metecco industry”) with the treatment of incombustible waste loaded on the Defendant’s workplace (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Mecco industry”) and agreed to KRW 80,000,000 in total, including transportation cost of KRW 50,000, disposal cost of KRW 30,000; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff transported the waste of Macco industry from August 18, 2014 to August 29, 2014 to Korea Macco industry; and (d) processed the Han Mecco industry.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff transported wastes in accordance with the instant contract and paid waste disposal costs to the Hanercco industry in advance according to the industry’s practice. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,721,60 (80,000 x 409.02t) plus value added tax (35,93,760 x 32,721,60 x 1.1).

B. Defendant 1) The instant contract was concluded with respect to the disposal of 2,00t of waste. Since the Plaintiff failed to complete this, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. (ii) Even if not, the Plaintiff is in charge of the transportation work, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim only the amount equivalent to the transportation cost less the disposal cost, and among them, the amount of soil mixed with the waste should be deducted in order to increase the shipment cost.

3. Determination

A. Although "2,00 tons" is stated in the contract of this case, the contract of this case was concluded in full view of the following facts: (a) the relevant item is "the estimated emission quantity"; (b) the quantity of waste was not accurately calculated while the waste was stored in a stack; and (c) the time of completion of the work of this case was registered in a blank space; and (d) only the unit price was entered in the contract of this case.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가단20112

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.19 2017가단105928

-광주지방법원 2018.12.19 2018가단9963

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단106695

-수원지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단31233