logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.05 2017나208134
근저당권말소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “Article 8” of the first instance judgment No. 18 is as “Article 7; Article 4, 6, and 7 are as follows; “The last day of August 31, 2016 changed the construction period into KRW 4,390,540,00 (including value-added tax)”; “No. 6 is added to the ground for recognition of basic facts; and “No. 6” is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the Defendant added the judgment as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff spent expenses equivalent to KRW 2,441,353,380 for the instant construction project in excess of KRW 2,127,20,000 for the construction cost stipulated in the instant contract. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant for the construction cost in excess of KRW 314,153,380 for the construction cost (=2,441,353,380 - 2,127,200,000).

Therefore, the right to collateral security of this case remains effective with the defendant's claim against the plaintiff as the secured claim.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that there exists any amount to be returned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the instant construction work, and thus, it is difficult to view that there has been any amount to be returned to the Defendant, as asserted by the Defendant, the claim for settlement of accounts has not been occurred.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The contract term of the instant contract provides as of May 19, 2014. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the ordering authority, made it inevitable to delay the construction by stating that it will completely review the project. Accordingly, according to the contract to extend the construction period between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant, who is the contractor, the subcontractor.

arrow