logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.08.20 2012가합14039
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants’ respective KRW 4,813,160 per annum from May 8, 2014 to August 20, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2011, the Plaintiff received orders for the production and supply of Friter (PREHEAT) from the OMAS YSTD (hereinafter “OMAT”) and on May 20, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted 35,420,000 production cost (including value-added tax) that entered the said Friter to Defendant A on May 20, 2012.

B. On June 19, 2012, Defendant A’s production process of this case to Defendant B during the instant production process consists of ice ice work by inserting the tubes in the tubes that form a stept, the confirmation work by putting the tubes in the tubes, and the work by inserting the completed tubes into the stept, and the work by inserting them into the stept. Of which, the confirmation work is the work by inserting the stept into the stept and stept by inserting them into the stept.

B subcontracted the production cost of KRW 29,119,500.

C. Defendant B performed the confirmation work using a crypted tamp, and some of the pipes inside the crypted. D.

At the time of completion of the above confirmation work, the fixed rate of the production work of this case was 62.5%.

【Ground of recognition】 The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the result of appraiser C’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. (A) The instant claims made by Defendant A against Defendant A were impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the scrap frequency generated inside the tubes, and the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract on the grounds of Defendant A’s nonperformance. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 48,075,943, the costs incurred in re-production of the instant case to Defendant A, as well as KRW 66,584,310, totaling KRW 114,660,253 (= KRW 48,075,943, KRW 66,584,584,310, and delay damages incurred in the re-production of the instant case to Defendant A due to the Plaintiff’s failure to supply the instant cargo within the payment period.

(B) The Plaintiff is on behalf of the Defendant A.

arrow