logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.01 2015나15360
선급금반환등
Text

1.The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal claim shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2011, the Defendant suspended construction work because it was awarded a contract for construction of general restaurants and seminars (hereinafter “instant building”) to Gyeonggi-si C, Gyeonggi-do, and was not paid the construction cost.

B. After that, the Plaintiff purchased the site of the instant building and the building under construction from B, and agreed to fully succeed to the rights and obligations of the owner of the instant building as the building owner under B. On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the remainder of the construction with D who actually performed the said construction and entered into a new contract with the Defendant on March 14, 201, retroactively from March 14, 2011.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the said contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to perform the remainder of the construction work that the Defendant agreed to (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The said contract with the Defendant was concluded in duplicate under the name of D and the Defendant, as in the case of the Plaintiff).

In the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the construction cost as KRW 410 million (excluding value-added tax) and the commencement date on March 14, 201, as of May 20, 201, and as of May 20, 2011. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff compensation for delay calculated by multiplying the contract price by 1/100 for each number of days of delay when the construction work is not completed within the deadline for completion. In relation to the payment of the said construction cost, the Defendant paid KRW 70 million, which was already received from B, as the construction cost under the instant contract. At the time of the conclusion of the said contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 170,000,000, not paid by the Defendant from B, and KRW 1770,000,000,000 for the instant construction work to the Defendant.

The Defendant concluded the instant contract and resumed the construction, but failed to complete the instant construction project until the completion date of the instant construction project, from July 201 to July 201.

arrow