(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.07 2015나27677

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.07 2015나27677

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the payment to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) exceeds KRW 21 million.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff claimed construction cost and additional construction cost as the principal lawsuit. The Defendant claimed a contract bond, liquidated damages, warranty bond, unjust enrichment return, and defect repair expenses as a counterclaim. The Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost was accepted, and the claim for additional construction cost was dismissed, and part of the Defendant’s claim for liquidated damages was accepted and the remainder was dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged against the part against the defendant only, the claim for the additional construction cost of the main claim shall be excluded from the scope of the trial of the party.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "45 million won" in Part 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "46 million won"; "A 3" in Part 8 is dismissed as "A 4"; "B" in Part 11 is dismissed as "B 4"; "B 2-b (2) and 3-B 3-4 (2) of the last sentence (7-2) and 3-B-4 of the part of the judgment of first instance (3-2) (excluding the last parallel to 9-7 of the last parallel to 8-2) and the part of the judgment of first instance is stated as "A 420 of the Civil Procedure Act"; and it is also cited as it is in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Parts to be dried;

A. According to the last sentence of 2-b, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant construction cost of KRW 21 million (i.e., KRW 92 million - the paid construction cost of KRW 71 million).

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint on the above 21 million won.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff decided to pay or submit the warranty bond to the Defendant in cash or in a letter of guarantee, etc. (Article 17(1) of the General Conditions of the Contract), and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s warranty bond shall be deemed to be in the concurrent performance relationship with the Defendant’s obligation for the payment of the contract price. Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 9 December 9, 2004 shall

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나25294

-대구지방법원 2015.10.22 2015나302398

-서울고등법원 2016.11.18 2015나32877

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2017.05.31 2016나2067

-서울고등법원 2015.10.08 2015나2008610