logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.22 2017가합105443
계약무효 확인 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On July 2013, Hosan Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for new construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Madym Technology Corporation (hereinafter “Madym”), Inc. (hereinafter “Madym”) and the Madym Technical Corporation (hereinafter “Madym”), and entered into a contract for partial modification of the terms and conditions of the said contract on December 30, 2014.

Around October 2014, U.S. entered into a subcontract with U.S. Co., Ltd. and U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”) on a contract with the term “T.S.D. construction” as KRW 237,55,500 in relation to “T.S. construction,” and on November 12, 2014, a subcontract with the Defendant and the instant construction amount of KRW 3,787,196,00 in relation to “T.S. construction,” respectively.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a subcontract agreement with a contract amounting to KRW 19,800,000 (hereinafter “instant re-subcontract agreement”) relating to “tin construction” during the instant construction work.

On January 13, 2015, when a fire accident occurred, D caused an accident that is destroyed by the finishing of the outer wall of a building that is affixed by the flame to the outer wall of the building, while melting the ice of the floor by using the fluoring fluor for the construction of the sidewalk block at the construction site of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

Mets Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Metsts”) filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement against the victims due to the instant accident after paying 151,95,578 won to the victims due to the instant accident, and then the court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and D jointly paid 151,95,578 won and its delay damages to Mez,” and the said judgment was appealed by the Plaintiff.

arrow