logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나2908
유익비
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for beneficial costs equivalent to the design and supervision costs, and ② A claim for beneficial costs equivalent to penalty surcharges and non-performance penalty. The first instance court accepted the partial claim, and ① dismissed the partial claim.

Thus, since the defendant appealed to the part of the claim against the defendant, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the part claims.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s ground building C in Kim Jong-si, the Defendant owned by the Defendant around 2014 (hereinafter “instant building”).

A) Purchase or lease of the instant building was made, and a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,072,00 for penalty and non-performance penalty (hereinafter “instant non-performance penalty”) was imposed on the Defendant during the process of obtaining a building permit regarding the instant building without permission at the time

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the enforcement fine of this case’s unjust enrichment or unjust enrichment of 16,072,00 won, and damages for delay therefrom, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of the enforcement fine of this case to the Plaintiff, and the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant building was terminated as the agreement on the price was not reached. The enforcement fine of this case’s building falls under the beneficial cost of the building of this case, and the Defendant obtained profit equivalent to the pertinent amount of the enforcement fine of this case’s building without any legal cause, and thereby, incurred losses to the Plaintiff.

In addition, D, a director of the Plaintiff, decided on June 7, 2014, before the Plaintiff was established, to purchase the instant building and its site when the Plaintiff was established and funds were raised.

arrow