(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.08.21 2020나2007482

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) 서울고등법원 2020.08.21 2020나2007482

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff, which constitutes the following payment order.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, in relation to the second construction of this case against the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages and warranty bond in lieu of defect repair, and ② a claim for damages due to incomplete performance of damages related to the preceding construction and the litigation cost incurred by the Plaintiff.

The first instance court partially accepted the claim for damages due to incomplete performance on the amount of the costs of lawsuit, and dismissed all the remaining claims of the plaintiff.

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed against the part of the claim for damages and the claim for warranty against the defect repair in lieu of the defect repair related to the first and second defects among the judgment of the court of first instance, and extended the purport of the claim by adding the claim for damages due to incomplete performance of the costs repaid by the Plaintiff related to the prior suit in this case.

Therefore, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the Plaintiff’s appeal part and its extension claim part.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: ① each of the “Defendant A Co., Ltd.” and “Defendant A” shall be used as “Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial”; ② The council of occupants’ representatives of the instant case filed an application against the Plaintiff for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs relating to the instant prior suit (U.S. District Court 2019Kamama80164), and on January 13, 2020, the said court rendered a decision to confirm that the Plaintiff’s reimbursement to the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant case was KRW 32,49,170, and the said decision became final and conclusive at that time; ③ the addition of evidence No. 15 “in addition to the addition of evidence No. 7,” as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B is for execution.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.08.16 2015나2066975

-서울고등법원 2015.11.19 2015나2033494

-의정부지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나209537

-서울고등법원 2015.06.25 2014나2046905

-대법원 2015.12.10 2015다218570