본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
제주지방법원 2019.04.03 2018나657

공사대금

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant signed and sealed “the signature and seal” under paragraph (3) under the third upper part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the Defendant’s additional assertion made in the court of first instance is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion to be determined additionally

A. The defendant asserts that the act of preparing a written confirmation of the balance of this case is null and void pursuant to Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act, since the defendant had no knowledge of the defect in the building of this case due to the plaintiff's error of construction, he prepared a written confirmation of the balance of this case at the plaintiff's request.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the defect of the second floor of the stairs room was caused by mistake in the plaintiff's construction, and that the defect of the floor of the first floor was caused by mistake in the plaintiff's construction, as seen earlier. The defendant stated that on April 28, 2015, which was seven months after September 26, 2014, the balance certificate was issued, that "the defendant would submit a plan for non-performance" in the above balance certificate, as well as that on May 11, 2015, a payment agreement with three points on the plan for non-payment of 27.6 million won for the remainder of the construction work. In light of the defendant's status at the new construction of the building of the building of this case, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone constitutes a juristic act with respect to the preparation of the balance certificate of this case in violation of good morals and other social order, or there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's act constitutes a juristic act significantly lacking in fairness and experience.

B. The plaintiff's claim amount 1.