(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나1675 | 리걸엔진

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) 청주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나1675

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant to newly construct a detached house in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant construction”) and the construction cost of KRW 27,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid KRW 20,700,000 to the Defendant.

B. Around January 11, 2017, the instant construction project received a construction report on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul. Around September 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the construction report on the construction (the first replacement) of the instant construction due to a change in the location of the building, and on September 11, 2017, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul.

(Presentation) The cost stated in the notice of acceptance of the report and the submission of related documents shall take effect). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 and 2(including paper numbers), each fact inquiry results with respect to DMyeon Office and Erchitectural Office of the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The judgment of the court below did not clearly state the purport of the plaintiff's claim for property damages and the purport of seeking consolation money, as follows: "the defendant unilaterally performed the contract of this case by changing the design drawing to a design drawing that is completely different from the design drawing that the original building permit was granted to the plaintiff and suspended the construction work without finishing and completing the construction work. After doing so, the plaintiff completed the construction work. Since the plaintiff suffered damages from the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 15 million won for damages due to the non-performance of the contract of this case as well as damages for delay." The defendant asserts that "the defendant does not clearly state the purport of claiming consolation money and the purport of claiming consolation money." The defendant asserts that "the construction work by changing the design drawing with the permission of the plaintiff was

3. In full view of the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, this case’s assertion.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가합803

-청주지방법원 2019.10.24 2018가단7924

-청주지방법원 2020.09.24 2019가단24797

-부산지방법원 2015.04.22 2014나12314

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.02 2017나90300