(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.24 2018나6767 | 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) 광주지방법원 2019.10.24 2018나6767

선박수리대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the repair work of KRW 3,00,000 for the total construction cost as to the Defendant and C (the name of the instant vessel was changed later; hereinafter, whether before or after the change was made) and completed the repair.

However, since the Defendant paid the construction cost of KRW 17,00,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 16,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

B. The Defendant only arranged a sales contract for the instant vessel, and requested the Plaintiff to repair the instant vessel.

or the contract for repair works is not entered into.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the testimony of witness E by the court witness E, Gap 1 to 3, and Eul 1’s respective entries and the overall purport of arguments, the testimony of witness F of this court as shown in the plaintiff’s argument is difficult to believe that some of the testimony of witness F of this court is in accord with the plaintiff’s argument. Other evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for repair work of the ship

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay the repair cost of the instant vessel to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the Plaintiff’s repair of the instant vessel, the owner of the instant vessel was not the Defendant, and the Defendant sold the instant vessel to H or E at the request of G, to H or E, and the sales contract was null and void, and the instant vessel was sold to E on March 25, 2016.

It seems that the seller was a broker for sale.

If it is necessary to repair the object in the course of a sales contract, it seems that the seller bears the repair cost by directly damaging the object or deducting the repair cost from the sales price.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.09.02 2014가합5715

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2021.01.13 2020가단54925

-부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013가합1719

-부산지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단12139