(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나8428

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나8428

손해배상 등

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The reasoning for this part of the claim for the confirmation and removal of the existence of a debt is as stated in the part of the fifth to seventh to sixth, except for the addition of the following, after the sixth, of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to the part of the fifth to seventh and sixth, this part of the claim shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part】 The Defendant designed to use the boiler already used at the time of the installation of a hump in parallel with the boiler. The Defendant asserted that there is no problem in the hump and the hump tank constructed by the Defendant, as even according to the current heating system, since the 60∑ C's hot water can be produced. However, according to the results of the fact-finding on hump D of the court of first instance, it is possible to supply more than 60§C, the water pumps installed by the Defendant through automatic control supplementation, etc., and the existing electric boiler at the hump tank, which are the water temperature at the entrance of the hump for saving energy, but in this case, it is not consistent with the purpose of the alteration of the heating and cooling system for saving energy, and is not suitable for the design of the hump, which is the heating source, and it is not different from the design tank installed (45§C). Therefore, the Defendant's assertion is without merit.”

B. The Plaintiff asserts that he suffered loss from sales due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation and sought payment of damages equivalent to KRW 30,000,000, which is part of the business amount, according to either KRW 231,938,960, or liquidated damages.

However, in relation to the damages, the business contract of this case is "(1) and (2) of Article 15(1) and (2)."

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2014.09.05 2013가합200692

-서울고등법원 2018.08.28 2017나2057470

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.21 2017가합5553

-대전고등법원(청주) 2015.08.18 2013나20657

-광주지방법원 2017.08.25 2016나58849