(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.18 2018나2061315

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) 서울고등법원 2019.12.18 2018나2061315

손해배상(기)

Text

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional determination: (a) the Defendant’s assertion of partial revision of the judgment of the court of first instance and emphasized or added by this court; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; (c) thereby,

The 5th judgment of the first instance court was final and conclusive "(hereinafter referred to as "related final and conclusive judgment")".

B. The 6th six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance reveal “Evidence A 1 to 4” with “Evidence A 1 to 4, 11.”

C. The 14th sentence of the first instance judgment and the 11st to 15th sentence are as follows.

1) The Defendant’s assertion as to limitation of liability should be based on comparative negligence or limitation of liability, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff provided a major cause for the discontinuance of the instant construction project; (b) the selection of a wrong supervisor causing interference to the Defendant’s resumption of construction; and (c) the Plaintiff did not have any damage due to the cancellation of

2) In a case where a debtor is liable for damages due to nonperformance to a creditor, if there is any negligence on the part of the creditor or if it is necessary to ensure fairness in the burden of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da70688, Mar. 12, 2009; 2010Da17765, Jul. 29, 2010). Determination of the fact-finding or the ratio on the grounds of comparative negligence or limitation of liability in a damage compensation case due to nonperformance falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da201650, May 16, 2014). The aforementioned evidence is examined, together with the purport of the entire arguments, the construction cost in this case can be seen as follows:

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008다70688 판결

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.04.28 2014나4392

-대법원 2017.05.31 2016다54858

-대법원 2014. 2. 27. 선고 2013다66911 판결

-대법원 2016.06.28 2014다52834

-서울고등법원 2019.01.24 2018나2029908