beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
2. From October 17, 2014 to October 3, 2014 among the principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【The parts to be removed or added】 Each “Plaintiff” of the 10th 5th 18, 19, 6, 17th 6, 10th 10, 11, 12, 16, 11th 6, and 7th 6, and each “Defendant” of the 10th 16, and 17th 10th 17th 10 as “Plaintiff.”
The respective “5,343,644 won” of the 6th 7th 7th and 10th 17th 17th is “19,658,307 won”, and the “5,343,644 won” of the 9th 15th 15th 15 is added “(19,658,307 won in preliminary event that no beneficial cost is recognized in light of the degree of non-conformity).”
"19,658,307 won 5,343,644 won" in the 7th sentence 9 and "15,77,098 won (=19,658,307 - 31,110 (15) - 540,105 (17), 113,013 (19), 900,657 (20 - 1,016,324 (24)) - 19,658,307 won 5,343,644 won in the 11th sentence 2, 3 and 5 of the 11th sentence “19,658,307 won 5,343,644 won in the 5th sentence” and “15,77,098 won in each case.
Part 7. The following shall be added to Part 17:
'First of all, the part of the claim to pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 7,826,00 per month from October 17, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the funeral hall of this case and KRW 385,00 per month from the completion date of delivery of the general restaurant of this case is deemed lawful.
A lawsuit for future performance may be instituted only where it is necessary to claim in advance. In this context, where a prior claim is required, it refers to the case where the obligor cannot expect the voluntary performance when the due date comes or the conditions are satisfied because the obligor contests the existence of the obligation from the date when the due date is not due or when the conditions are not met.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25576 delivered on August 22, 2000, etc.).