logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.09.08 2015다222517
공사대금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court: (a) concluded that the Plaintiffs, the contractor of the instant contract, bear the expenses for the indication, excavation and investigation of cultural heritage assets; and (b) subsequently amended by Act No. 11547, Dec. 18, 2012;

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 5(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, or Article 3(3) of the General Conditions for the Construction Contract of this case, it cannot be deemed null and void

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Article 3(3)

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the instant apportionment agreement cannot be deemed null and void as it violates Article 11(3) or 24(4) of the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the judgment below affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on Articles 11(3) and 24(4) of the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage

arrow