(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.11 2018나2020222

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 2018.10.11 2018나2020222

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should state this case in this case are as stated in the following Paragraph 2 are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On January 2, 2015, on the date of three amendments in the table following Chapter 4, Chapter 15, of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "C"), "F 12.12.12.1.2.2."

Forms 4 through 11 of the decision of the first instance shall be followed in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

1) The plaintiffs' assertion (A) The plaintiffs asserted that the contract for the construction of this case was entered into, under the premise that the temporary materials should be used for six months from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, the unit price was determined by applying the loss rate of 30% of the strong price according to the standard construction cost, but the contract was awarded due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, but the period of use of the temporary materials increased from October 1, 2013 to November 30, 2015.

② However, the Defendant used the temporary materials to the Plaintiffs for a total of at least one year, including the period of initial scheduled temporary materials, during the period from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, and paid an amount equivalent to 30% of the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to 70% of the amount of steel price already paid according to the loss ratio applied when using the temporary materials for at least one year in accordance with the Standard Cost of Construction Works.

(3) However, even if the plaintiffs calculated the unit price of the tuition fee based on the standard pinsem, if the construction period has increased due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, the indirect construction cost should be calculated on the basis of actual expenses. Since the plaintiffs leased the relevant construction instead of purchasing the steel to be used in the instant construction, the plaintiffs have increased the construction period due to the reasons attributable to

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.10.15 2018가단105692

-서울고등법원 2016.03.18 2015나2045145

-서울고등법원 2016.07.15 2015나2065064

-청주지방법원 2019.05.24 2018가단26956

-청주지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단18728