logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.03.30 2017나2052277
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In relation to E apartment 103, 503, 100,000 won following the cancellation of the sales contract, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 265,90,000,000 (in calculation, KRW 265,90,000,000,000,000 for the total of KRW 239,000,000 for the sale price following the cancellation of the sales contract, and KRW 3,000,000 for the extension and structural alteration of balcony, and KRW 26,69,00,000 for the above apartment 106,302,000 for the damages due to delay in delivery of the apartment ( KRW 79,65,00 for the damages equivalent to KRW 77,50,00 for the difference and KRW 2,500 for the director's damages equivalent to KRW 8,70,000 for the non-construction costs) and KRW 807,000.

The first instance court, among the claims related to the above apartment 103 Dong 503, filed a claim for restitution equivalent to the sale price and a penalty, and partly accepted the claim for damages due to delay in delivery among the claims related to the above apartment 106 Dong 302, and dismissed the rest of the claim.

The plaintiff filed an appeal only for each claim for damages on the above apartment Nos. 106, 302 among the judgment of the first instance, and extended the claim for damages due to delay in delivery in this court, and the defendant did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the claim for damages with respect to the above apartment No. 106, 302.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a partnership established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on July 23, 2003 for reconstruction of B apartment units in the above C, and a petition construction company (hereinafter "petition construction") is a construction company in charge of reconstruction of the above apartment units.

B. The Defendant: (a) concluded a construction contract for the reconstruction of an apartment again with the petition construction on June 8, 2005 when the construction was discontinued while K Construction, which is the previous contractor, removed B apartment units and reconstructed E apartment units on the site; and (b) set the construction period as 16 months from the date of the commencement of the construction.

arrow