(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.27 2015가단73473

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) 창원지방법원 2016.09.27 2015가단73473

계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to prepare a design drawing necessary for the execution of the construction of the D Electric Source Housing Site development project on the land outside C and outside 25, 2013, and paid a total of KRW 25,00,000 at the design cost, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant at the time to produce a drawing that can maximizes the effect of the minimum construction cost, including the adjustment of the extension of the land surface, and issued the drawing and the volume table prepared by E in relation to the said construction as reference material, may be acknowledged according to each entry in the evidence A and 3.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment asserted that the Defendant partly revised the E’s drawings and quantity table that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, and did not prepare and deliver a drawing that could minimize construction costs as required by the Plaintiff, and sought the cancellation of the service contract with the Defendant and the return of the amount already paid.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is found that the defendant prepared a design drawing and quantity table and presented them to the plaintiff around August 13, 2013, but refused to receive them on the ground that construction costs were calculated more than the plaintiff initially thought. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 alone is contrary to the purport of minimizing construction costs (which means to minimize construction costs within the scope of construction costs, but does not mean to minimize construction costs without any condition) and thus, it is insufficient to deem that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대법원 1972. 3. 28. 선고 71다889 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.13 2016가단112939

-전주지방법원 2017.01.20 2015가단30444

-인천지방법원 2015.09.23 2014가합3333

-수원지방법원 2015.03.12 2014가단57446