(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.30 2017노2350 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2017.10.30 2017노2350

재물손괴

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case was known to have been established by the sn beam court which concluded a subcontract agreement with the Defendant. Since the Defendant paid the said company advance payment of KRW 50 million, the ownership of the H beamline constructed within the scope of the appeal is owned by the Defendant.

Even if not,

Even if the Defendant had ownership in the sloping beamline, the Defendant

As such, there was a justifiable reason for trust and good faith.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to damage the property.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the ownership of the lower court of this case was the Defendant or the Defendant was his own possession.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant who arbitrarily damaged it has the intention to damage the property.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On April 28, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with the JJ to enter into a subcontract with the amount of KRW 350 million in construction cost (construction cost of KRW 273 million) from April 30, 2015 to August 15, 2015, with respect to the soil shield and peling construction for apartment city-type residential housing located in G, and paid KRW 50 million in down payment to the JJ.

D Under subcontract from J for the construction of soil removal facilities, from May 18, 2015 to May 22, 2015, the construction of soil removal facilities (facilities) was conducted at the construction site of this case.

② In relation to the construction method, “the president method” is the method in which the sn beamline remains as part of the building even after the construction of the building was completed. “the sn beam method” is the method in which the h beam beamline was installed only until the h beam beamline is required and then the h beam beamline is recovered when another support cost is installed.

When the original defendant concludes a subcontract with J, it is necessary to prevent soil from entering into the subcontract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.09.20 2014고단179 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2021.01.20 2020고단2248

-수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2018노672

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.07.13 2017고단52

-광주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017고단4008