logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.03.31 2018가단115205
수리비 청구
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,650,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 13, 2016 to March 31, 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for cargo tank hosting work (hereinafter “instant painting work”) on the part of the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant vessel”) and completed the contract on February 11, 2016.

B. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on the instant painting construction cost of KRW 33 million and issued a tax invoice to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant painting construction cost of KRW 33 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant did not completely remove the seals affixed on the ship of this case, and caused defects, such as the removal of the new seals affixed on the wind to carry out the painting of this case, and caused damages equivalent to KRW 211,214,00,00 of the cost of repairing defects. Thus, the defendant's right to claim the above damages against the plaintiff's claim for damages. The plaintiff asserted to the effect that it offsets the plaintiff's right to claim damages against the plaintiff's seal payment claim. The plaintiff, in order to completely remove the door which had already been loaded on the ship of this case before carrying out the painting of this case, after carrying out the construction of this case's painting, he did not perform the construction of this case's painting with the defendant's request, so the plaintiff did not be liable for the above defects, and the plaintiff asserted that the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 214,000, and evidence No. 2, and the purport of the court's appraisal of this case's whole E evidence No. 2.

arrow