(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.12.02 2019나2050633

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 2020.12.02 2019나2050633

정산금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The part excluding the conclusion among the reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case excluding the conclusion among the reasons for the reasoning of the judgment excluding the conclusion, and the part excluding the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the defendant emphasizing a second or an additional argument in this court as set forth in paragraph (3) 2 is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court

(1) In addition to the following, the remaining arguments of the parties do not significantly differ from the contents alleged in the first instance trial. However, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial shows additional evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justifiable). 2. On the third page of the third instance judgment, “5,00,000 won” is deemed “5,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax)” in the third page of the third instance judgment.

"7,000,000 won" in the third 15th tier judgment shall be "747,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax)".

On January 15, 2015, "The 15th of January 2015" in the third 20th of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed " January 26, 2015".

Part 10 of the judgment of the first instance court, "for the sewage fee" of 12 pages 10 shall be "for the subcontractor".

The 12th judgment of the first instance court shall consist of 15th to 18th judgment as follows:

It is reasonable to interpret that the contractor shall pay the amount equivalent to value-added tax to the contractor separately from the contract amount where the contract amount is stated to the effect that value-added tax is separate. The fact that the contract amount is set at KRW 747,00,000 in the instant contract amount (No. 2-1) and the fact that the contract amount is set at KRW 747,00,000 and the value-added tax is set at below that amount, as seen above, is difficult to view that value-added tax is exempted on the instant contract, and therefore, the total contract amount under the instant contract amount is KRW 821,70,000 (i.e., the modified contract amount of KRW 74,700,000).

In addition, the payment made by the plaintiffs to the defendant according to the contract of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.21 2018나33730

-서울고등법원 2021.02.03 2020나2002845

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.27 2018나37191

-서울북부지방법원 2020.12.18 2019가단146212

-광주지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나64155