(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나201199

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나201199

기계제작 대금

Text

1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance") stated "the contract was concluded, and all of the contract amount of KRW 25,157,00 (including value-added tax) was paid."

The fourth sentence of the first instance judgment " May 22, 2017" shall be applied to " May 10, 2017" in the first sentence.

The following shall be added to the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance.

“A. The Defendant received KRW 13,090,00 from H Co., Ltd. on October 24, 2017, insurance money of KRW 13,090 according to the performance guarantee insurance contract of the instant contract. On January 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for personal rehabilitation (Seoul District Court Decision 2019Da200794, Jan. 11, 2019; the order of prohibition was issued on January 11, 2019; on December 2, 2019, the said decision of dismissal was revoked on December 11, 2019.” The Plaintiff added “Evidence 11” to “No. 3, 6, 16, 16, 36, 16, 16, 200 of the first instance judgment.”

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion unilaterally sought payment against the Defendant without fulfilling the obligation under the instant contract, and there is no other special circumstance.

This can be deemed to have objectively expressed the intent of the Plaintiff not to perform his/her obligation in advance to the Defendant. Therefore, it is not necessary to demand the termination of the contract.

In addition, the plaintiff will supply the printing machine to D.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나201199

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.09.10 2019나14385

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.11.19 2020나11707

-서울고등법원 2018.07.20 2017나2073755

-서울고등법원 2018.09.07 2018나2002842