(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.06 2014나830 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2015.11.06 2014나830

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding “(3) an anticipated work for the extension of telecommunications water supply and sewerage ventilation, etc. (3)” to “(3) below the second 3rd following the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the construction of this case is completed

A. The Defendant’s assertion that this case’s construction project not only does not end the last scheduled construction process, but also does not complete the main structure as agreed upon. As such, compensation for delay up to the completion date of construction of the instant house should be deducted from the unpaid construction cost.

B. In the event that the construction of the relevant legal doctrine was interrupted during the course of the construction, and the completion of the scheduled last process is not completed, it shall be interpreted that the construction is completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the main structural part was completed in accordance with the agreement. However, if the construction is to make incomplete remuneration, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed but it is only a defect in the object. Whether the scheduled last process has been completed can not be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract and the principle of good faith and good faith without recourse to the contractor’s assertion or the completion inspection conducted by the contractor. Such standard is also applicable to the agreement on compensation for delay, which has the nature of the liquidated damages as the liquidated damages for the delay of the completion of the work called the completion of the contract by the contractor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da23150 delivered on October 10, 1997, etc.). C.

Judgment

The purpose of this paper is to examine the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the whole of the arguments.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 10. 10. 선고 97다23150 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.09.27 2018나2059459

-대법원 2015.07.09 2015다13447

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.15 2016가단29434

-서울고등법원 2019.04.04 2018나2034757

-창원지방법원통영지원 2017.05.17 2016가단23495