beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant should deduct the construction cost of the 1-191 and the 2-279 line from the settlement amount that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff, and that this part of the Defendant’s defense was accepted.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the instant agreement, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, dismissed the “Agreement on the Transfer of State-owned and public land gratuitously transferred,” and thus, the Plaintiff returned the State-owned and public land held to the Defendant, but it was impossible for the Defendant to fulfill its duty to return, and thus, determined that the Defendant has a claim for damages equivalent to the price of the State-owned and public
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the causes attributable to nonperformance, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, by inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment, or by violating the duty of explanation.
3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court calculated damages for delay on the Plaintiff’s Defendant by applying 3.9% per annum, 2.8% per annum, and 1% per annum, respectively, according to the interest rate on fixed deposit with one-year maturity of the Gu treasury in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, which is the variable interest rate, different from the interest on the amount paid by the Plaintiff and the portion on the base date of the interest
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of calculating the interest rate on delay damages under Article 5(4) of the Convention, or by violating the principle of pleading and the rules of evidence.