(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016나2037578

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 2017.01.13 2016나2037578

건물명도

Text

1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, order the payment in excess of the amount ordering the payment below.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff contracted the construction of the building of this case to the defendant and sought delivery of part of the building of this case which was completed by the new construction work against the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant claimed payment of the unpaid construction cost and damages for delay as a counterclaim.

As to this, the first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had a lien on the new building with the unpaid construction cost as the secured claim, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff contracted for the new construction of the building of this case to the Defendant and completed construction of the new building of this case, and that the Defendant occupied part of the building of this case, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant had a lien on the new building of new building with the unpaid construction cost as the secured claim. ② As to the counterclaim

In this regard, the plaintiff appealed against the part against the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance (the claim of the plaintiff was all dismissed, but the plaintiff did not appeal against it, and the defendant's counterclaim was partially dismissed, but the defendant did not appeal against it), and the scope of the judgment of the court is limited to the part against the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance among the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 660,00,000 (including value-added tax), March 5, 2013, July 30, 2013, and at the rate of 0.03% per day for delay compensation (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The plaintiff around August 2013, the rate of liquidated damages with the defendant around 0.0% per day.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.01.29 2014나2048017

-수원고등법원 2020.10.08 2019나21008

-서울고등법원 2020.11.05 2019나2056150

-대전지방법원 2017.09.28 2016나8464

-대전지방법원 2017.10.26 2015나8948