beta
Text
1. Each appeal filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed.
2. The trial of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff is based on the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the court's explanation is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the submission or addition of the following, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant set off the claim for delay against the plaintiff as stipulated in the mechanical installation contract of this case against the claim for delay payment. Thus, according to the above facts, the plaintiff had to complete the trial operation by July 15, 2012, but the plaintiff had completed the trial operation on September 28, 2012, the plaintiff had to install the machinery of this case in the defendant's factory and completed the trial operation before July 28, 2012. Thus, the compensation for delay damages amounting to KRW 112,50,000 (= KRW 500,000 x 3/100 x 75 x 75 days) which does not exceed 10% of the contract price of this case (= 50,000,000,0000 x 10% of the contract price of this case). The plaintiff's claim for delay due to the completion of the trial operation on the same date as the above claim of this case arrives at the date of both parties.
In addition, it is clear in the record that the legal brief dated April 14, 2016, stating the original defendant's declaration of set-off each of the above claims against the plaintiff on the same day, was delivered to the plaintiff on the same day. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the unpaid construction costs was extinguished within the scope equivalent to 50,000,000 won retroactively from September 28, 2012, which is the set-off date.
As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.
The part of the judgment of the court below that "20,65,00 won" in the 6th and 4th and 28,265,000 won was stated as follows. The plaintiff asserted that the damages claim in lieu of defect repair has expired after the expiration of the three-year extinctive prescription, but Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act applies to the damages claim in lieu of defect repair.