(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나301767

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) 대구지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나301767

기타(금전)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not complete the installation and operation of the decretion season of this case until July 25, 2013, which is the payment period stipulated in the instant contract for the manufacture of the instant facilities, but could normally operate it on November 4, 2013 due to the defects existing in the decretion season of this case even after the installation was completed. (2) Pursuant to Article 6 of the instant contract for the manufacture of facilities, the Defendant was obligated to pay rent and delay damages to the Plaintiff for 11,211,00 won (37,00,000 x 3/1,000 x 3/1,000 x 101 x 101 x 3/1,000 x 100 x 3/1000 x 1005 x 3005 x 1005 x 3005 x 1005 x 1005 x 1005 x 10005 won.

3. Determination

A. On July 25, 2013, the part claiming the payment of liquidated damages, and the original and the Defendant determined the completion date of installation of the escape season of this case as of July 25, 2013, and agreed to pay the liquidated damages in an amount calculated by multiplying the total contract amount of KRW 37,000,000 per day by the rate of 3/1000 where the Defendant delays installation, as seen earlier. The Defendant first installed the escape season of this case on August 15, 2013, but collected it again on the same day due to the defect, and thereafter, on August 29, 2013, the fact that the Defendant re- installed it on the same day on which two weeks elapsed thereafter does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, as the Defendant delayed the installation of the instant sloping machine for 35 days from July 26, 2013 to August 29, 2013, the day following the agreement on the completion of installation, the Defendant is obligated to pay the penalty for delay corresponding thereto.

In addition, even after the establishment of around August 29, 2013 has been completed, the Plaintiff was relieved of the instant case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.01.26 2015가단11505

-대구지방법원 2017.04.06 2016나9597

-인천지방법원 2015.9.22. 선고 2014가단69916 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.24 2013가합38232

-인천지방법원 2015.01.15 2014고단8683