logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나2049499
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2012, the Incheon Regional Procurement Service under the Defendant Republic of Korea issued a public notice of purchase of procurement commodities for the telephone facilities (co-exchange equipment) to be installed in the “personally peaceful forest” of the funeral hall where the construction project is being implemented by means of general competitive bidding around March 7, 2012, according to the purchase request of the Defendant Young-si, and the Plaintiff was awarded the bid in the said bidding.

(1) The name of the end-user institution: The name of the Gyeonggi-do Government. (2) The contract amount: the 666,505,880 won; the contract amount: the 66,650,590 won: the delivery period: May 15, 2012.

B. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase contract for the procurement commodities (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”) with the Incheon Regional Government Procurement Service (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”).

C. On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff received advance payment of KRW 466,50,000 from the Defendant Young-si.

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant Young-si entered into an agreement on the supply of goods and technical assistance with Esco system Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Esco”) and Esco system Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sco”) which manufactures the goods subject to the instant purchase contract at the Plaintiff’s request.

E. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to respectively change the contract amount of the instant purchase contract with the Incheon Regional Government Procurement Service to KRW 661,510,000, and the delivery period to December 31, 2012.

F. Defendant Republic of Korea notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant purchase agreement on March 22, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform the instant purchase agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 7, 12, 14, Eul.

arrow