logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.15 2018가단533726
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's confirmation that the rehabilitation claim against C Co., Ltd. is KRW 94,046,203;

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) operates a research institute located in Ma-si, Ma-si, and F (hereinafter “instant research institute”) as a company operating an electronic, electrical, and telecommunications equipment-related business, etc., and is located in Ma-si, Ma-si, and F (hereinafter “instant research institute”).

B. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”) was awarded a contract with Nonparty G Co., Ltd. for water supply works in the G Yang-gu adjacent to the instant research institute on April 2017.

C. On April 30, 2017, while the debtor company was running the said construction, the plaintiff company carried out the construction of the ground-breaking of the road (hereinafter “instant construction”) within the research institute of this case located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu. D.

However, on May 2, 2017, the instant research institute caused a static accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

E. Meanwhile, on June 13, 2019, when the instant lawsuit was pending in this court, the U.S. District Court decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings against the debtor company as the U.S. District Court 2019 Ma511, and the defendant, who was the representative director of the debtor company, was the administrator and taken over the instant litigation proceedings.

On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 94,046,203 ( principal KRW 79,200,000, interest KRW 14,846,203) as rehabilitation claims with claims related to the instant claim amount under the above rehabilitation procedures against the debtor company. The Defendant raised an objection to the entire amount of the claim, and the Plaintiff changed its exchange to a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of rehabilitation claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 14, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence 1, the video of Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s debtor company is laid underground in the event that it carries out the excavation work like the instant construction work.

arrow