(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나102223

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) 대전지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나102223

유치권부존재확인 등

Text

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

2.Pursuant to a counterclaim brought in the trial.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except the following: (a) the dismissal or addition of Paragraph (2) and the additional determination of Paragraph (3) are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The first head of the first instance judgment added “a principal and counterclaim” to the first head of the first instance judgment.

B. Article 2-A(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

“The instant construction contract was terminated on August 1, 2015 due to the Defendant’s voluntary suspension of the instant construction work and the failure to perform the contract. The instant construction contract was terminated on August 1, 2015. The construction cost to be paid to the Defendant, if the payment of the prepaid construction cost, defect repair cost, and liquidated damages was deducted from the prepaid construction cost at the time of termination, did not remain and the construction cost was paid in excess. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a lien, and the Defendant has a duty to deliver the instant construction site (each land and the completed portion of the construction) to the Plaintiff, and to return the excess construction cost to the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff remains to pay the construction cost to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant construction site (each land and the completed portion of the construction work) shall be repaid with each other.

The plaintiff's assertion of liquidated damages is without merit in the construction work and the construction work is suspended due to the plaintiff's failure to pay progress payment.

Therefore, the defendant's exercise of the right of retention is justified, and the plaintiff remains the remainder of the construction.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.01.30 2013가단51761

-광주지방법원 2021.01.28 2018가단538485

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.05.12 2015가단34948

-부산지방법원 2019.09.27 2018나6157