(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나27223 (1)

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나27223 (1)

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit following the judgment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2013, the representative Plaintiff, entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Defendant would receive a contract for the outer wall of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (the underground first floor and the eightth floor size of the ground) and the actual container coworking around the window (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the main contents are as follows.

1) Construction cost: 9,240,000 won (=8,400,000 value-added tax of KRW 840,00) Construction Method 2) The snow part of the outer wall (4 pages) of the building (A) building, new and glass part, and the coworking of new and new part shall be in the same color as the previous one, after removing the existing actual container and then again constructing the actual container with the new one.

B. However, among the instant construction works, the Plaintiff, while carrying out the cosing construction between the instant construction project and the new cosponsor, did not remove pre-construction containers and pre-constructions.

C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to suspend construction due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the contract, and notified the rescission of the instant contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work around July 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 5,80,00,00 in accordance with the Plaintiff’s flag and height ratio, since the 70 to 80% of the fireproof area of the building outer wall of this case and the new 45% of the window shot part among the instant construction works, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion against the Defendant is seeking payment of KRW 5,80,000 in the construction cost in lieu of defect repair. 2) In the case of the building outer wall sloping part constructed by the Plaintiff’s assertion in lieu of defect repair, the distance between the

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.23 2018나35928

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.27 2018나213942

-울산지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단17274

-대전고등법원 2018.08.22 2018나11549

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.07 2016가단92525