logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.11 2015나2001756
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the defendant’s partial statement among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition or replacement of some contents as follows.

[Supplementary Parts] The 9th 15th 15th 15th son of the first instance judgment shall add the following:

The Defendant asserts that, “A” should be calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the completed cost stipulated in the latter part of paragraph (a) of this case’s subcontract agreement that the Plaintiff agreed to continue the instant subcontract agreement that had been entered into with the Defendant as the condition of this case’s subcontract agreement, upon the suspension of this case’s construction, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to continue the instant construction. The Defendant asserted that the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff should be calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the completed cost stipulated in the latter part of paragraph (a) of this case’s subcontract agreement (i.e., the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff should be calculated in accordance with the latter part of paragraph (a) of this case’s subcontract agreement. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff ought to be separated from the construction cost of the instant case’s construction cost of KRW 291,280,000, 587,180,000,000,000 won separately placed to the Gyeonggi Disaster Prevention Corporation.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff agreed to perform the instant construction project, which had been conducted by the Plaintiff with the Defendant around April 2010, as it was the content of the instant subcontract that had been concluded with the instant comprehensive construction. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and No. 2, according to the special agreement of the instant subcontract, the amount remaining after excluding the amount for which the remaining process can be completed, as the special agreement of the instant subcontract, is “A” under the latter part of paragraph (a).

arrow