(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나421 | 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) 제주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나421

공사대금

Text

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

2. An objection to the trial;

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance. In light of each evidence submitted by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination under Paragraph (2) as to the Defendant's counterclaim claim filed in the trial court. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. On the premise that the Defendant paid all the construction cost of the instant case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 11,890,000 in lieu of the defect repair recognized by the lower court.

However, the construction cost of this case is KRW 770,00,000, and the construction cost paid by the defendant is KRW 742,884,075, which eventually led to the fact that the construction cost unpaid by the defendant was 27,115,925.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim based on the premise that the defendant paid the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

It appears that the above argument by the defendant constitutes damages in lieu of defect repair and non-construction, and that the sum of the construction costs that the defendant does not bear is not KRW 11,890,00,00 as recognized by the court below, but is KRW 23,691,560. However, according to the result of the court of first instance’s entrustment of appraisal to the I company of the court of first instance, the fact that the presumption of construction costs that the plaintiff would incur for the defendant’s repair is 11,890,000, may be recognized, and the appraisal result by the appraiser shall be respected unless there is a significant error, such as that the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009); and the defendant’s assertion.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.02.08 2017다49204

-대법원 2018.2.8.선고 2017다49204 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.08.16 2015나2066975

-서울고등법원 2015.06.03 2014나2047472

-수원지방법원 2020.01.09 2017가단529263