logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.09.26 2018가합1079
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the Defendant and the Busan-gu Busan-gu Seoul-based main complex building construction cost of KRW 934,560,00 for construction work, and the construction period of construction period of KRW 934,560,00 for each of the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) to conclude a subcontract agreement with each of the parties to receive such subcontract during the period from October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

B. On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D Co., Ltd. to purchase KRW 89,100,000 of the purchase price (hereinafter “instant mining pumps”) for the instant construction (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the same year from February 28, 2018 to February 28, 2018

6. From around 19.19. He received from the above D Co., Ltd. the mine pumps of this case from Busan Nam-gu, Busan, the construction site of this case.

C. In addition, on December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F and F operating temporary materials for construction (hereinafter “instant temporary materials”) with the trade name of E, to lease each of them as from December 1, 2017 to December 2018, and thereafter use F and F as the car for the instant temporary materials at KRW 5,00,000 and returned it to F by May 31, 2019, on the condition that if the Plaintiff fails to return it by June 30, 2019, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff purchased the said temporary materials, and the term of lease shall be from December 1, 2017 to December 13, 2019 and shall pay the purchase price agreement.

On the other hand, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on July 13, 2018 that the instant subcontract was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff unilaterally ceased construction works without completion of construction works within the construction period, while the Plaintiff failed to complete construction works within the construction period under the instant subcontract.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, A No. 1.

arrow