본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나5033

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:


1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 to 6, Gap evidence No. 15, Gap evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 16, testimony of a witness at the trial, and fact-finding results about appraiser G, which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, are additionally rejected, and the reasons for maintaining the first instance court's decision as to the scope of the non-paid claim, and the items No. 3 (c) of the judgment of the first instance as to the plaintiff's succession's acquisition of the claim for the construction payment of this case and participation in the transfer of the claim by the plaintiff's successor, the item No. 3 (d) of the judgment of the first instance is corrected as "judgment on the claim of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor," and it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, it is identical with

- The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor disputed some items recognized as defects in the first instance trial, and some of them are items recognized as having been constructed as having been constructed (the preparatory documents dated July 16, 2015, such as landscaped trees, etc.) and the results and opinions of the court’s appraiser, there is insufficient counter-proof to acknowledge them as defects.

2. The part used after completion (the part falling under the items of the theory of lawsuit in Article 3-3 of the judgment of the first instance);

C. On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the claims filed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor Nos. 11 through 13, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for construction cost under the instant construction contract to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor on August 7, 2015, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, and on October 14, 2015, the notice of the assignment was served to the Defendant, respectively, and there is no counter-proof.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit, and the defendant is not liable for the payment of the construction cost acknowledged prior to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor and the defendant accordingly.