(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.03.22 2017나4687 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2018.03.22 2017나4687

공사대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and Kimhae-si, the third floor D party of the building, under which the Plaintiff would set up a party platform at KRW 18,000,000, and the Plaintiff completed the said construction around January 2017.

B. Around February 2017, at the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff moved the party room installed in accordance with the above construction to another place, and additionally supplied related goods, and the cost is equivalent to KRW 1,110,000.

C. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 15,800,000,000 as the down payment, and KRW 8,000,00 on January 6, 2017, and KRW 3,000,000 on January 26, 2017, and KRW 16,3,000,000 on March 16, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,310,00,00 (i.e., the remainder payment of KRW 2,200,000 for the moving of the party room and the supply of additional goods) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 28, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff did not complete the construction of the party headquarters of this case properly, and did not take any subsequent measures therefor.

Due to the failure to perform the construction of the party room, the defendant was unable to operate his business from February 2, 2017 to August 2017, and the party room repair work was again requested by other companies than the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for the delay in the opening of the party room and the expenses for the repair of the party room. Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the remainder of the construction expenses to the plaintiff.

The evidence of evidence of Nos. 1 to 3 alone is about the old party construction in this case.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단5044121

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.15 2011고단6919

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.26 2017고단980

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.31 2018고합326

-수원지방법원 2019.10.25 2018가단21018