logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.07 2015나22122
기지급 공사비대금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, the appointed party) and the appointed party A respectively.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Forms 2 and 11 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be as follows:

4. Determination on the remaining claims

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for damages as a penalty for breach of contract under the instant construction contract, the Defendant et al. did not pay the Plaintiff a cash amounting to 5% of the contract amount with the contract performance guarantee under the instant construction contract but did not pay it. As long as the said construction contract was terminated due to a cause attributable to the Defendant et al., the Defendant et al. shall pay the Plaintiff a contract performance guarantee amount of KRW 14,200,000 (284,000,000 x 5%) as a penalty for breach of contract. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant et al. agreed that the contract performance guarantee is reverted to the Plaintiff in the event the construction is interrupted or terminated due to the circumstances and/or liability of the Defendant et al. in entering into the instant construction contract. The contract performance guarantee is determined to be 10% of the contract amount when the contract is paid as a guarantee, and 5% of the contract amount when the contract is paid in cash. According to the above construction contract, the Plaintiff or Defendant et al. can be terminated within the aforementioned period.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence 46, Eul evidence 46, witness E's testimony, and witness H's testimony, the plaintiff paid 30 million won advance payment to the defendant, etc. after concluding the instant construction contract.

arrow