logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.09.10 2014나14284
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the changed and reduced counterclaim claims are dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant added the following determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance with respect to the principal claim, and the part concerning "decision as to the counterclaim claim under paragraph (3)" with respect to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the entry in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as referred to in paragraph (3) below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 3,450,00 from the road adjacent to the instant land to the inside of a newly-built house owned by the Plaintiff should be deducted from the amount of KRW 13,737,160, which was recognized as damages due to the failure to install waterworks in the first instance court, since the costs of installing waterworks are the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff even if he/she performed his/her duty of installing waterworks.

However, according to the terms of this case, the defendant's duty to install the infrastructure (including waterworks facilities) of the defendant is not sufficient to install the water pipe simply, and it can be evaluated that the plaintiff has fulfilled its duty to provide the basic conditions so that water supply can be used in newly constructed housing.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff needs to pay the above KRW 3,450,00 of the defendant's assertion even if the defendant fulfilled the above obligation properly.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the changed and reduced counterclaims in the trial

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant letter of cooperation despite the obligation to cooperate in obtaining a building permit (such as consent to road use) in relation to the sale or use of real estate other than the land in the name of the Plaintiff, which was sold to Nonparty V in the same 200 m2. Q 909m2.

arrow