logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.11 2014나108506
공사대금
Text

1. All appeals against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are filed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance: (b) No. 15 to No. 21 of the instant construction work, which had been conducted by the Plaintiff in connection with the premise of appraisal, appears to have been conducted without implementing systematic succession procedures based on the design drawings and specifications, and the contract specifications based on the fixed quantity of the remaining construction works at the time the Plaintiff continued to perform the instant construction work, which had been conducted by C; (c) the distinction between the first construction portion, the Plaintiff’s construction portion, and the third party’s construction portion is uncertain; and (d) the design drawings and specifications offered by the Defendant are not systematic construction specifications based on the contract specifications; and (d) it is difficult to assess the construction cost and defect repair cost of the Plaintiff; and (e) it is difficult to determine the appropriateness of the appraisal cost of the first instance judgment based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, other than the design drawings and specifications offered by the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to determine the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s and the main body.

2. Conclusion.

arrow