logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(제주) 2016.10.05 2015나1910
손해배상(기)
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant C shall pay 148,145,000 won to the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “written undertaking” under Paragraph 1(f) of Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “written undertaking” (hereinafter “written undertaking of this case”), and therefore, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for monetary payment

A. 1) According to the plaintiffs' claim of this case as to the primary assertion (the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment) of this case, the contract price of this case 2 is 1.1 billion won. The J agreed not to receive the above contract price of 901,85,000 won, except for the above contract price of 901,85,000 won, which was already paid by the plaintiffs or the defendants, with the plaintiffs, to reduce the above contract price of 901,85,000 won. Meanwhile, the defendants did not pay 198,145,000 won out of the above contract price of this case to the court until now even though they received the payment of the money including the two contract price of this case from the plaintiffs, while the J agreed that the above 198,145,000 won was settled by the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants are jointly liable to pay the above 198,145,000 won to the plaintiffs and compensation for delay as well as the following facts and purport of the evidence as a whole.

① After Defendant C’s abandonment of each of the instant construction works, the instant construction works, and J concluded contracts with each of the Plaintiffs, respectively.

At the time of the instant two construction works, Defendant C was in office as a director of J, and was provided with vehicle and oil expenses by J, and was in charge of on-site management of the instant two construction works.

② Defendant C was delegated by J on the issue of claiming the remainder of the instant 2 construction project to the Plaintiffs, and this is so delegated.

arrow