logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.04.29 2018나2007656
부당이득반환등 청구의 소
Text

1. Of the parts relating to the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts shall be ordered to be paid:

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

▣ 제1심 판결문 제3면 제5행 중 “3,142,600,000원”을 “3,042,600,000원”으로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제3면 제9행 중 “원고와”를 “원고는”으로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제4면 [표] 내부 제18행 아래에 다음과 같은 기재를 추가한다.

Article 32 (Cancellation of Contracts by "B", etc. (1) "B" may cancel or terminate all or part of the contract in any of the following cases:

1. If the contract value has decreased by a change in the contents of construction works, not less than 40/100;

2. Where the period of suspension of construction due to the reason attributable to “A” exceeds 50/100 of the construction period specified in the contract;

(2) The provisions of Article 31 (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the cancellation or termination of a contract pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article;

Article 33 [Handling at the time of termination of a contract] (1) When a contract is terminated under Articles 31 and 32, "A" and "B" shall settle the construction amount of the completed portion without delay.

(2) If any loss has been incurred due to the rescission or termination of a contract under Articles 31 and 32, the other party may claim compensation therefor from the latter.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff (Cause of Claim) paid to the Defendant Company a total of KRW 2,951,00,000 as the construction price of the instant case, but the Defendant Company constructed the instant building in bad faith by June 2015, carried out the construction work without any change in design, and added an estimate.

arrow