logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.22 2015나19171
공사자재 임대료 등
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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following determination to the corresponding part of the argument that the court of first instance brought again in the trial by supplementing the argument of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion at the trial

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement, claiming the absence of the agreement on construction cost, is not a simple material lease agreement, but a total amount of the contract to complete the “construction works, such as system dong Ri, etc.,” among the instant subcontracted projects, with the amount stipulated in the instant estimate. Therefore, even if an additional construction is made, the Plaintiff may not claim the additional construction cost unless there exists any agreement on the increase in the construction cost. 2) The Plaintiff’s employee H who asserted the waiver of the claim on behalf of the Plaintiff, attached the Plaintiff’s employee’s seal affixed a written confirmation (Evidence No. 5, 2, and 3) to the Defendant to waive the Plaintiff’s claim on rent for the instant resubcontracts.

B. In full view of the facts and the following circumstances acknowledged prior to the determination of the absence of an agreement on the construction cost of additional construction, the Defendant concluded to pay additional construction cost to the Plaintiff, i.e., material cost and labor cost, in cases where the number of days of use and quantity increase at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement and re-subcontract, based on the following circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement that leases the instant temporary materials to the Defendant, and the re-subcontract that installs the instant temporary materials at the site of the subcontracted project, and the item of “materials cost” in the written estimate of this case.

arrow