logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2014.07.01 2013가단8173
유체동산인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) obtained a successful bid of KRW 14,000 cubic meters from the dredging of Jeoncheon-gu to KRW 112,150,000, and paid the price in full.

However, the amount of dredging soil confirmed through actual release was 12,728 cubic meters.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the dredging 1,272 cubic meters which are insufficient to the plaintiff, and if the delivery is impossible, the defendant is obligated to return the insufficient amount of KRW 10,188,720 in cubic meters.

2. Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7 and the witness Gap's testimony as to the fact that the number of the dredgings is insufficient, are all the plaintiff's or the representative's unilateral assertion, or are the statement of a person with a delegated relation between the plaintiff with respect to the takeover of the dredgings of this case, and the following circumstances (applicable for recognition: Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the witness's testimony) are not reliable and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the amount of dredging which has been awarded a successful bid is insufficient.

The defendant laid down large amount of sand at the landing place in Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, caused interference with the entry and departure of fishing vessels and the operation of fishermen, thereby performing dredging works at the landing place in Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu for smooth fishing activities (from February 24, 2012).

3. Up to September 29, 200, 1,500 cubic meters, and two vehicles (from May 21, 2012).

7. up to 24. 12,500 cubic meters) The Defendant was awarded a successful tender on the dredging volume and the dredging volume.

The defendant calculated the amount of dredging soil at the time of the first dredging work by calculating the number of transport trucks, and the amount of dredging soil at the time of the second dredging work was calculated by measuring the width, length, and height of the dredging soil loaded by dredging pumps and using the quantity calculated formula.

On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff raises any objection due to the shortage or excess of the quantity it acquired after the acquisition.

arrow