logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가합39672
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 18, 2017 to November 15, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the indoor construction business and the construction and marina business, and the Defendant is a person who runs the tourist accommodation business (tourist hotel) in the name of "D tourist hotel" in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant owned two buildings (hereinafter “instant building”). Around June 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare a quotation and a provisional drawing for the said remodeling construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) in order to remodel the interior and outside of the building, including the extension of the instant building. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a quotation and a provisional drawing with a total sum of KRW 2,05,500,000 (excluding a surcharge) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

On September 13, 2016, the Defendant asked that “The drawing was extracted from the Plaintiff’s staff G, so far as he did so at a low time,” and that G asked “N” as “N,” even though he sent to the Plaintiff’s staff G, I would like to say that “I will now enter into the present contract.”

(A) Evidence No. 8-2) (c)

After examining the aforementioned quotation and drawings, the Defendant’s employees (E) made a review on September 17, 2016, and requested the Plaintiff to install the elevator on the first floor and the underground floor of the instant building, to transfer and place the disabled toilets underground, and to prepare the drawings again. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s employees required specifications. On this, the Plaintiff’s employees (“E”) expressed the color that “if the contract was made after the conclusion of the first contract was made, it is necessary to make the specifications.” However, the Defendant’s employees (E) expressed that “ even if the contract was made as little, the Chairperson would not be called “?” and that “I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I do not am? I am? I do not am? I do so soon soon.

arrow