logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.01 2015다52527
채무부존재확인
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the lower court acknowledged the following: (a) comprehensively based on the adopted evidence, that there was no item regarding the preparation of design drawings in the details of the instant subcontract No. 1; (b) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) was instructed by the Plaintiff, the head of the Plaintiff’s machinery team, to first proceed with the work of the steel-frame design drawings; and (c) requested the Plaintiff, etc. to prepare and settle the steel-frame design drawings; and (d) paid a total of KRW 461,141,810 by requesting the Plaintiff, etc. to prepare the steel-frame design drawings;

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the above judgment of the lower court in light of the records, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s assertion on the payment of the construction cost and the damages claim arising from the violation of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

Although the allegations in the grounds of appeal are misunderstanding legal principles, they are merely erroneous in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, and they cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal. Furthermore, in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is examined in violation of logical

arrow