(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나26046

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나26046

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remainder of the principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim. Accordingly, only the Plaintiff appealed the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit.

Therefore, the object of this Court's adjudication is limited to the main claim.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance concerning the cause of the principal claim is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Judgment on the Claim of the principal claim”, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification or addition as follows.

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "the shareholder of construction" in Part 25 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(b)in Part 5 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the phrase “incompetence” in Part 20 of the fifth decision:

According to Article 3(3) of the Agreement on the Construction Industry, the Defendant bears the Defendant’s specific professional engineer license for the Plaintiff merely because the Defendant’s four insurance premiums incurred from March 2013 through July 2014, 2014, other than the expenses prescribed in Article 2(3) of the Agreement on the Construction Industry (all expenses including management expenses, personnel expenses, headquarters office, and construction site) incurred before the Plaintiff acquired. The Defendant’s four insurance premiums incurred from March 2013 to July 2014 can be deemed to be included in the management expenses and personnel expenses incurred before the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff, and the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry prescribes the minimum technical expert and construction expert requirements.

3. The plaintiff's main claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit.

참조조문

-건설산업기본법 시행령

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.06.28 2017나14926

-인천지방법원 2021.02.10 2018나3830

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가합22231

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.01.21 2020가단1229

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.01 2015나44488