logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.02 2013나60908
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part written by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part written by the court of first instance, "No. 81", "No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 81 and No. 82, "No. 82", is written by the court of first instance. "No.

Scope of damages and “D” portion.

The part of the "strifics" (the part of the first instance judgment from 20 to 17 pages 13) shall be followed as follows.

The purpose of Article 398 of the Civil Act is to reduce the occurrence of damages and/or the difficulty to prove the amount of damages, prevent the occurrence of a dispute in advance, and resolve the legal relationship easily by preventing the occurrence of the dispute. In cases of liquidated damages at the time of a contract, unless otherwise stipulated, not only ordinary damages arising from nonperformance but also special damages are included in the estimated amount of damages, and the creditor’s damages exceed the estimated amount of damages.

Even if the excess cannot be separately claimed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10382, Jul. 15, 2010). In the instant case, the fact that Defendant Ho-nam and Nam-gu leased totaling KRW 826,953,920 to the Plaintiff under the instant contract is recognized as above.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 77, and 81-1, 2, 65, and 66 of Gap evidence Nos. 13-2, and Gap evidence No. 81-2, 2, 65, and 66, the defendant Gyeongnam-nam-gu and Namnam-gu shall participate in the bidding procedure to be selected as a contractor for the remodeling project of this case on Aug. 22, 2007, and the plaintiff shall follow the procedures prescribed in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes if the party company is selected as the contractor, and it is impossible to implement the remodeling project with the purport that the union members cannot accept

arrow