logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나47429
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal and the plaintiff's grounds for incidental appeal are not significantly different from each argument by the court of first instance. The fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance by the plaintiff were written evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 (the evidence Nos. 9 and 13) of evidence Nos. 8-2, 11, 12 of evidence Nos. 11, 12 of evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 6, and 8 of evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 6, and 3, 7 of evidence Nos. 3 and 7 of the defendant submitted by the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is that the part of the first instance court's 8th judgment, "the defendant," "from "the same page," "from 14th to 17th of the same page," and the plaintiff's argument emphasized in this court is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, except for adding "2. Additional Judgment" as to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is in violation of the principle of prohibition of speech to claim that the Defendant should confiscate the full amount of the instant contract deposit (106,639,890 won) based on Article 12(3) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, even though the Plaintiff would impose an amount equivalent to 30/100 of the quantity of the non-delivery supplied pursuant to Article 53(6) of the Special Conditions of the instant contract in the event that the Plaintiff failed to perform the instant contract by means of a letter sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as of June 1, 2016. Therefore, in light of such circumstances, the estimated amount of damages to be reverted to the Defendant should be reduced to less than 20% of the instant contract deposit

B. The general terms and conditions of the instant contract, Article 8(1) of the General Conditions of the instant contract, stating, “A contracting officer shall revert to the National Treasury the contract bond if the other party to the contract fails to perform his/her contractual obligations without any justifiable reason.”

arrow