(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.09.26 2013나75283

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) 서울고등법원 2014.09.26 2013나75283

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic fact is as follows: ① A. The main contents of the construction contract entered into by the plaintiff and A (hereinafter “the construction contract in this case”) after the last reduction of the judgment of the court of first instance are as shown in the attached Table 3; ② The term “A.4%” in the 8th fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “A.5%”; ③ The term “attached 1 and Attached 2” shall be changed as shown in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the change as shown in the attached Tables 1 and 2 of this judgment. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Unlike the agreement, the defendant failed to complete the construction of this case within 28 months from the date of commencement, and violated the obligation to complete the construction of this case by giving up the construction of this case after January 6, 2010. The plaintiffs caused damages for which the principal and interest of this case cannot be repaid from the proceeds from sale or sales of the facility of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant's assertion is liable for violation of the obligation to complete the construction of this case's liability.

However, the phrase “the Defendant failed to complete the instant construction by the scheduled completion date” is attributable to the Defendant’s cause not attributable to the Defendant, such as design change.

In addition, according to the instant business agreement, the lender bears the obligation of the Defendant to pay the price for construction up to 70% of the total amount of the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as “presumpted price”) according to the existing rate, and the Plaintiff Gwangju Bank, a representative bank, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Gwangju Bank.” Here, “Plaintiff Gwangju Bank” refers to the representative bank”) refuses to approve the withdrawal of the presumpted price, against this end, after October 2009.

After all, the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.09.26 2013나2023011

-서울고등법원 2016.01.14 2015나2038147

-대법원 2015.01.29 2013다56891

-대법원 2015.10.29 2014다75349

-서울고등법원 2015.05.15 2014나42631