logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.07.07 2014가합3029
토지인도 및 손해배상(기)
Text

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 42,753,700 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from May 29, 2015 to July 7, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of real estate development business, tourist hotel development and operation business, etc., and is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”). The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of building construction business, etc.

B. 1) On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works, etc., the so-called “ So-called So-called “ So-called “ So-called Land Vacant Land”).

2) As well as the construction of a new hotel on each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant hotel construction work”).

2) On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a construction supervision agreement with the PP Engineering Certified Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “top engineering”) on the part of the instant hotel construction work (hereinafter “top”) on the contract amount of KRW 230,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

3) On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant for the construction period of the instant earth and construction works (including value-added tax) and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for construction works on a fixed basis as KRW 1,33,200,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(C) On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract of this case. (c) On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff: (i) there is no possibility that the Defendant completed the instant earth construction by October 15, 2014; (ii) there is a high possibility that the Defendant would incur an accident, such as the collapse of the wall part by executing construction by means of the vibration emission method, rather than the noise emission method stipulated in the instant contract; and (iii) on the ground that the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s on-site agent replacement request, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content that the instant contract is terminated to the Defendant on September 23, 2014.

2. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the deposit basis, the Defendant as the principal; and (b) on the deposit basis, KRW 225,50,000.

arrow