(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.18 2014나42877

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) 서울고등법원 2015.03.18 2014나42877

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for “the parts to be modified” under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) On the 7th sentence of the first instance court judgment, the “Witness D” in the 6th sentence of the 7th instance court judgment shall be read as “Witness D of the first instance court,” and on the 8th sentence “round January 4, 2012” in the 9th sentence as “ around January 5, 2012.”

B. Parts 7 through 11 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 8, D and the Defendant’s husband, were found to have prepared a written confirmation that “the construction work of this case is completed by October 25, 201.” Meanwhile, considering the overall purport of pleadings as to evidence No. 2-1 and evidence No. 15-1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the contract of this case and the contract of this case, the construction cost of which is KRW 760 million, the construction period of which is KRW 90 million from February 9, 201 to August 30, 201, and the delayed delay damages were calculated by the rate of 0.1% of the contract amount per day, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not modify the contract of this case from 200 million to 200 million won, and the contract of this case was modified by the agreement of this case and the contract of this case to 1.5 billion won and the contract of this case to 205 billion won and the contract of this case to 201 billion won and the contract of this case were modified by the agreement of this case.”

It is not sufficient to recognize that there was an agreement to exempt the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay liquidated damages against the Defendant, and there is evidence to prove otherwise.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.01.18 2017나10027

-서울고등법원 2016.11.25 2016나2007171

-서울고등법원 2015.10.07 2015나9969

-대전지방법원 2021.04.23 2019나118621

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.25 2018나58624