logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.24 2017나1713
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant operates the Gosiwon in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the plaintiff is a company that manufactures, installs, and repairs the elevator.

B. On July 4, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair the elevator installed in the above Gowon Building (hereinafter “instant elevator”).

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the elevator was suspended due to the impossibility of control function by the loss of the parts of the elevator parts in the elevator server, and explained that the server should be replaced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) asserts that since the plaintiff replaces an elevator server with the defendant, the defendant should pay the above server's price of KRW 4,004,00 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim is improper for the following reasons.

There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the price of the abandoned land, and the claim amount is excessive.

The breakdown is caused by the defect in the humanter itself.

The plaintiff neglected his duty of care to possess elevator parts during the life period of the elevator but it is possible to replace only the parts in the server due to neglecting the duty of care.

The plaintiff is conducting the maintenance business of the elevator of this case, and the leaving the elevator until it becomes impossible to control the elevator of this case is the plaintiff's responsibility, and it must be replaced without compensation.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire argument, are as follows. The plaintiff received the defendant's request for repair of the elevator of this case and replaced the server of the elevator of this case, and the elevator of this case was installed around 2004 and around 2008.

arrow