(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.17 2017나8700 | 리걸엔진

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) 서울고등법원 2017.11.17 2017나8700

용역비

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2.In addition, at the time of the trial.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff filed a claim of USD 36,580 of the service cost in the first instance trial, USD 26,870 of the service cost in the “DBL” stage, ② final SSR and TRG “36,580 of the service cost in the phase, ③ additional 81,200 of the service cost. The judgment of the first instance court accepted the plaintiff’s claim, and ② the claim and ③ the claim were dismissed.

The defendant claimed 63,155.02 US$2,212,00,00 as part of damages due to the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation under the plaintiff's service contract. The judgment of the court of first instance dismissed all the above claims of the defendant.

Shed, the plaintiff appealed only to the above three claims among the part against which the principal lawsuit was lost, and the defendant appealed to the whole of the claim and the counterclaim.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above ① and ③ claims and counterclaims claims in the principal lawsuit.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts of the court's decision:

【Supplementary or additional parts of the judgment of the court of first instance 【72,500 dollars’ in the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance and ‘200,000 dollars’ in the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In the fourth map of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "re-consigning of the service performance of this case" shall be construed as "re-consigning the service performance of this case under the service contract of this case".

The following shall be added to the first sentence of the first instance judgment of the first instance."

As to this, the defendant asserts that there are many errors in the TLG sent by the plaintiff to the final TLG, and that it cannot be viewed as the "final TLG" which corresponds to a part of the DBL phase service under the Agreement on Settlement in this case.

The plaintiff completed DBL on March 6, 2012, and around that time, SAS files and TL files, which are statistics files created based on them.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.11.25 2016나3337

-대구고등법원 2019.01.24 2018나23330

-부산고등법원 2017.09.06 2017나51832

-서울고등법원 2017.11.03 2017나2026414

-서울고등법원 2016.12.08 2016나5346