logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나22580
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the cited party of the judgment of the court of first instance states concerning the instant case are as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “additional matters to be determined”, and thus, it is to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

In addition, even if the results of the fact-finding on the Administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration were examined, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delayed the construction of this case as a cause of natural disaster, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

② The Plaintiff completed the instant construction and claimed the remainder of the construction cost. However, it cannot be immediately acknowledged the remainder of the construction cost asserted by the Plaintiff, premised on the completion of the instant construction, as the Plaintiff himself/herself is also a person who has completed the instant construction work.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s remaining construction cost is calculated by deducting the construction cost from the construction cost of the instant construction project instead of the initial construction cost, the Plaintiff must prove the construction cost corresponding to the construction project performed by himself during the instant construction project by proving the construction cost. However, as long as the Plaintiff did not confirm the details of the instant construction project prescribed by the instant construction contract as to the construction cost (i.e., the details of the buildings to be completed and the material details thereof), the portion of the non-construction can not be determined. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s testimony and testimony of the witness I submitted at the trial, it is insufficient to recognize that the construction cost of the non-construction part of the instant construction project under the instant construction contract is 19,489,450 won for the purpose of using the second floor construction cost, and that of the non-construction part of the instant construction project is 450,000 won for the non-construction construction cost, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

arrow