logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.15 2018나10967
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

Reasons

1. As cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the judgment of this court as to “claim against the Plaintiff in Defendant B” and “the part of the Plaintiff’s respective principal claim against the Defendants,” are as stated in the nine to the second part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In other words, even if the evidence examined by this court was neglected, the court of first instance which rejected all counterclaim claims and affirmed the occurrence of damages liability among the principal lawsuit is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.

However, with respect to "the scope of liability for damages among the principal suit (not more than the end of the nineth judgment of the court of first instance)", the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows 2.

2. Scope of liability for damages in the principal lawsuit.

A. First of all, we examine the main claim for damages of property, which is the plaintiff's main claim.

The Defendants’ filing of the instant civil petition is acknowledged as follows: (a) the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to supply ready-mixeds at the construction site of this case from September 4, 2014 to December 19, 2014 is recognized.

However, in order to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered property damage due to the suspension of delivery for about three months during the payment period of three years from December 17, 2012 to June 30, 2016, the total quantity of ready-mixed agreed to be supplied by the Plaintiff during the three years and six months should be specified. According to the evidence No. 7, the total quantity is 89,005 cubic meters (distribution rate 50%), while according to the fact-finding report on D Co., Ltd., the total quantity is 81,529 cubic meters (distribution rate 45.8%) according to the above fact-finding report on D Co., Ltd., the total quantity is 89,05 cubic meters (distribution rate 50%), according to the above fact-finding report on D Co., Ltd.

arrow