logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.10.25 2015다221958
물품대금
Text

Of the part against the Defendant in the lower judgment, the part concerning the claim for interest on advance and the contract amount due to price fluctuation.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Since the agreement on compensation for delay in a contract for manufacturing and supplying goods is presumed to be an estimate of compensation for delay under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, in order to interpret it as a penalty for breach of contract, special circumstances must be proved.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da57126 delivered on January 25, 2002, etc.). In addition, the court may reduce the penalty for delay where it is deemed that the penalty for delay is unfairly excessive in light of various circumstances, such as the status of the party concerned, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind which the penalty for delay was scheduled, the rate of the penalty for delay to the contract amount, the number of the penalty for delay, the reasons for delay, and the transaction practices

(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Da2306 delivered on March 26, 199; 2003Da6705, 6712 delivered on April 28, 2005, etc.). The fact-finding and the determination of the ratio of the grounds for reduction are matters within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court, unless the fact-finding and the determination of the ratio are deemed to be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60136 Decided November 25, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da59493 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

1) On December 8, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 8, 2008, 50 H high-speed trains and guest cars for high-speed railroads (hereinafter “instant high-speed trains”) to the Defendant.

(1) The purchase contract for goods (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the content that the goods will be produced and supplied in 158,99,500,000 won for goods.

(2) Under the instant contract, when the Plaintiff failed to supply the instant high-speed rail vehicles by December 30, 201, the delivery deadline, the Defendant determined that the Defendant shall pay the penalty for delay according to the rate of 0.15% of the contract amount for delay, which is the penalty for delay.

3) After the delivery deadline, the Plaintiff supplied the instant high-speed rail from July 14, 2012 to July 25, 2012. 4) The Defendant paid the price for the goods and paid the price for the goods.

arrow