logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2015다200456
물품대금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the first ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that remuneration for the completed part of the instant machine should be recognized on the ground that the instant supply contract was lawfully rescinded, and there is no evidence to prove that the completed part of the instant machine was beneficial to the Defendant.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable. There were no errors by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the restriction of retroactive effect of rescission

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and it is reasonable to view that the part of the grounds for revocation of the instant case’s “ interfering with normal contract management” in the provision on the grounds of revocation includes not only the Plaintiff’s failure to supply the instant machinery, but also the Plaintiff’s interference with the lawfulness and fairness of the tender procedure and the overall process of the instant supply contract, as well as the Plaintiff’s interference with the fairness of the instant bidding procedure by offering bribe to the Defendant’s employees during the tendering procedure. Therefore, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the party's method of interpreting intent, requirements for rescission, etc. as expressed in the disposition document.

3...

arrow