(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2016가단5238871

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2016가단5238871

공사선급금 반환청구등

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 64,00,000 as well as 15% per annum from October 29, 2016 to the full payment.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers) and all the arguments.

On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to change the construction cost to KRW 266,80,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from May 5, 2016 to December of the same year, and agreed to change the construction cost with the Defendant to KRW 283,00,000 (including value-added tax) on April 5, 2016.

(2) The contract of this case contains the following provisions: (a) the contract of this case: (b) the contract of this case includes, without good cause, the contract of this case where the Defendant failed to complete the construction within the due date for the construction; (c) the contract of this case where it is evident that there is no possibility of completing the construction due to the Defendant’s breach of contract; and (d) the contract purpose cannot be achieved due to the Defendant’s breach of contract; and (c) the Plaintiff may cancel or terminate the contract when the contract is not performed within the due date after setting the due date and notifying the Defendant in writing.

B. On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 64,000,00 to the Defendant as advance payment of the instant construction work.

C. However, around August 23, 2016, the Defendant notified the Defendant that he would cancel the instant contract if the instant construction was not commenced by September 7, 2016. Notwithstanding the foregoing notification, the Defendant notified the Defendant that he would not start the instant construction work, and that he would return advance payment already paid around September 23, 2016, along with the notification that the instant contract will be rescinded.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant did not commence the construction of this case within the agreed time limit without justifiable grounds, and thus the plaintiff has the right of rescission as stipulated in the contract of this case.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.04.18 2017나24816

-서울서부지방법원 2014.07.04 2013가합33072

-청주지방법원 2018.11.08 2017구합2887

-수원지방법원 2018.01.23 2017구합60957

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2019가단87098