(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.02 2018나3104

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.02 2018나3104

노임

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Around March 26, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the structural part of the new construction of the building located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 43 million and completed the construction on or around June 30, 2017, and received only KRW 40 million out of the construction cost, there is no dispute between the parties.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and 7 through 10, the plaintiff paid KRW 420,000,000 upon the defendant's request, and further, around April 19, 2017, the plaintiff paid KRW 687,350.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 4,107,350 ( KRW 420,000,000) of each of the above construction works and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 12, 2018 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's defense asserts that the plaintiff's compensation was requested to the plaintiff due to the defect that the fire door is not closed after the plaintiff's construction work of this case, but the plaintiff did not accept it, and the defendant brought the repair work into the 2.7 million won, so the defendant asserts that the amount equivalent to the expenses for the defect repair is offset against the plaintiff's claim for the construction price by the automatic claim.

According to the records in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant was about July 10, 2017.

7. Around December 12, 198, even though it is recognized that the 2.7 million won was paid to E by expanding the entrance and toilet door, in light of the fact that the instant construction project contracted by the Defendant was a structural frame, it is unclear whether the said part of the defect was related to the instant construction project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016가단9530

-부산지방법원 2019.09.27 2018나57773

-서울고등법원 2017.03.24 2015나8454

-창원지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나58025

-수원지방법원 2020.06.05 2019나75877