logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나57308
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

(2).

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) In light of the following, the court's judgment on the part of the court's dismissal or addition is limited to the defect repair part). (2) In full view of the evidence mentioned above, the costs of appraisal of the defect and the results of appraisal entrustment to appraiser E of the first instance court as follows, the court's judgment on the part of the court's dismissal or addition of 2.2. 1. 3. 1. 1. 3. 3. 1. 3,791,90 won in total to repair the building of this case and to repair the defects mentioned below, the court's judgment on the part of the court's judgment on the 9-2 1. 1. 1.

However, if there is a defect in the object completed in a contract for work, the contractor may claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect, but the contractor may not claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect if the defect is not important and excessive expenses are needed at the same time, and only claim damages caused by the defect. In such cases, unless there are special circumstances, the ordinary damages caused by the defect shall be the difference between the exchange value of the object and the present condition of the defect if the contractor executes the work without the defect and the exchange value of the defect. Therefore, if it is impossible to calculate the difference in exchange value, it is reasonable to deem that the ordinary damages are the difference in the construction cost in the situation of the defect without the defect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da54376 delivered on March 13, 1998). This case is a case.

arrow