(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.28 2016가합8944

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.28 2016가합8944

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 302,280,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 22, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Defendant installed a 12 secondary wall tank with the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff pays 302,280,000 won as construction cost (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Under the instant contract, the Defendant completed the installation of a tank, and the Plaintiff paid all construction cost of KRW 302,280,000.

According to Gap evidence No. 1 (Tank Supply Contract), it is recognized that a contract has been entered into with the content that the 10th of the third wall tank tank is supplied to KRW 251,90,000 (including value-added tax).

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the contract was concluded to supply the 12-year tank to KRW 302,280,000, as above, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant led to the confession.

B. During the Plaintiff’s use of the said tank, water leakage was discovered at the first period of the tank on February 1, 2016.

The above leakage was caused by the failure to treat the internal PE convergence base volume and the second latter sirens, and the defendant decided to manufacture and deliver a new tank by February 5, 2016, and promised to prevent recurrence by conducting a safety inspection of the whole quantity of the tank.

C. Although the Defendant conducted repairs twice, water leakage was found in other tanks on February 16, 2016, the Defendant decided to supply one new tank instead of repairing on February 26, 2016.

After all, water has continuously occurred in the tank supplied by the defendant, and the plaintiff has been continuously repaired, but the tank has not been used normally.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6, 7

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not manufacture a new tank and did not work for repair. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the full return of the tank price paid and the removal of the tank.

Therefore, the defendant shall agree with the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.01.13 2014나4883

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.04.20 2016고단1943

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.05.17 2016가단5513

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.15 2018가단5000544

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.06.23 2015가단32263