logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018나80461
구상금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation in the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court under paragraph 14 above is recognized, and the following are the same.

According to the concession agreement for the creation of a housing site development project between the Intervenor and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor has made an advance payment under the subcontract agreement (Article 10) in this case, regardless of whether the Intervenor has received advance payment from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in full (Article 6). In light of the fact that the Intervenor has agreed to receive transfer of ownership of the above land after the payment of the purchase price was made in full (Article 4), it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor has received part of the construction price from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in kind from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in accordance with the so-called agency development method and the Defendants’ assertion. In the construction contract, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Intervenor and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation separately agreed to pay advance payment in connection with the instant construction contract. In light of the content of the evidence 2-1, it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor has made an advance payment under the subcontract agreement (Article 6).

Ultimately, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

Next, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff cannot claim the amount of the contract deposit as the amount of indemnity without proving the damages incurred to the intervenor who is the insured.

l.p. g., p.

arrow