logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.01.11 2016나856
건물인도 등
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the delivery of the principal suit against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B below.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and Defendant B’s counterclaim, and only the Plaintiff appealed against the principal claim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the principal claim.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2004, the construction of Defendant Tae-Gyeong Construction Co., Ltd.’s claims by the Defendants was set at KRW 880,000 for the construction cost from June 1, 2004 to September 30, 2004 and set at KRW 880,000 for the construction cost.

3. The building of this case (hereinafter “instant building”) entered into a contract for extension or new construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the building divided into one, two, and three separate units as indicated in the same list among the instant buildings.

On April 26, 2006, Defendant Thai Construction ordered J to pay the payment of the construction cost under the above construction contract as Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Ra656, Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Da6566, which read that “The J shall pay the construction cost of KRW 880,00,000 and the damages for delay.”

This payment order was finalized on May 13, 2006.

2) On August 16, 2005, Defendant B entered into a contract for the construction of the interior facilities of the 2nd building with J and the construction period from August 15, 2005 to October 15, 2005, setting the construction cost as KRW 120,000,000. Defendant B filed a claim against J for the payment of the construction cost under the said construction contract with the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Board Board Board Board Board Board Board 120,000,000 and its delay damages. The payment order became final and conclusive on March 11, 2006.

arrow