(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2012가단321398

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2012가단321398

설계용역계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 15,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with “design of Compressors and scrapers” for the purpose of technical contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The term of the instant contract is from April 24, 2012 to June 23, 2012, and the price that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant is KRW 25 million (excluding value-added tax).

B. In the instant contract, where the Plaintiff or the Defendant violated the contract or delayed the performance of the contract without any special reason, thereby hindering the other party’s business, the other party may rescind the contract in writing, and where the other party fails to perform the contract.

In the instant contract, there was no specific number regarding the compression and crushing machine.

C. Before the conclusion of the instant contract, it is written that the CAD equipment is CATIA 5 in a written estimate on the Class 1 and Class 2 of the compressed machine that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, stating that CATIA 5 is used.

CATS is the third CAD program. D.

On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 12.5 million, and on June 22, 2012, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with two compressors and one studs design drawings (hereinafter “instant drawings”) as a result of the performance of the instant contract.

The drawing of this case is to conduct the third-party modeling work using the CATS and to prepare the second-party model drawing using the AutoCAD.

E. On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the down payment and damages in writing on the ground that the instant drawings cannot be used in the general industrial field.

F. The instant drawing is difficult for a manufacturer to manufacture or assemble parts using the instant drawing due to the omission of a flood control hole, a prefabricated for assembly, a V, a width, or a length size.

The drawing of this case is the third source using the CATIA.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.16 2011가합125231

-부산고등법원 2018.11.22 2015나56055 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.19 2014가합38432

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.05.26 2015가합6490

-대전지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노303