logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.09.28 2016다205779
지체상금등
Text

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the part concerning the claim for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where an agreement on compensation for delay is generally applicable to an estimate of the amount of compensation for delay, and where it is deemed that the amount of compensation for delay calculated under the agreement is unfairly excessive in light of all the circumstances, such as the parties’ status, purpose and contents of the agreement, the motive behind the liquidated damages, the rate of the liquidated damages for delay to the contract amount, the amount of the liquidated damages for delay, the amount of the liquidated damages for delay, the reasons for delay, and the transaction practices at the time of the agreement, etc., the court may reduce the amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6705, 6712, Apr. 28, 2005). In such a case, the fact-finding or determination of the rate for the reasons for reduction

(2) On December 13, 2007, the court below held that the defendant was aware of the fact that the dispute related to the lien on the building of this case continues to exist at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, and that the defendant was aware of the obligation to pay interest or the obligation to pay compensation for delay. Even if the defendant did not properly examine the sales contract of this case and did not know of the above contents, it may be attributable to the defendant's responsibility. However, since the main cause attributable to the delay of the construction of this case was friendly M&D, it seems that the defendant's obligation to pay the total compensation for delay from the scheduled date to the completion date of the construction of this case is too harsh, on the other hand, there is delay in the occupancy of the building of this case and the defendant and the defendant.

arrow