logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.13 2018나2033174
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name set forth in paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment shall also be used as it is.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff Corporation is merely suspending the Defendant’s delayed payment of the construction cost, and there is no Plaintiff’s error in the suspension of construction work.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost based on the interest rate to the Plaintiff. In light of the location of the construction site of this case, it is practically difficult to appraise and appraise the construction cost. Thus, the Plaintiff claims the remainder of the expenses, excluding USD 70,65.076, out of the actual expenses paid by the Plaintiff for the performance of the contract of this case.

B. The Defendant terminated the instant contract because the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty of inspection, supply of goods, and installation under the instant contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting the expenses incurred in completing the construction and the amount of damages incurred due to the Plaintiff’s fault from the contract after the termination of the contract from USD 225,419,44, which is the supply and installation cost of the goods actually supplied by the Plaintiff before the contract is terminated, from USD 225,419,44.

3. Determination

A. The reasons why the court should explain in this part as to the termination of the contract of this case are as follows: the defendant's "the defendant" of No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance was used as "the plaintiff's", except for the case's "the plaintiff's"

B. (1) The construction contract is terminated without completion of the construction work, and it is based on the termination of the construction work contract, as it is, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

arrow