logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2013가합59956
손해배상 등
Text

1. In the case of the Selection Sejong Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., the amount of KRW 123,488,800 and KRW 100,000 among them, the amount of KRW 10,100 among them shall be the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for substantial repair of the C building owned by the Plaintiff to the selector.

At the time, the defendant was in office as the chief director, and was delegated by the board of directors to perform the supervisory duties on the construction site.

Due to the non-construction, modified construction, and defective construction of the appointed party, there were defects such as water leakage, equal heat, etc. in the building owned by the plaintiff.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5-7, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim against the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff neglected to perform on-site supervision duties by performing his/her duty of care as a good manager and failed to prevent defective construction.

Plaintiff

The meeting minutes of the board of directors do not specify specific delegation scope of supervision at the construction site.

However, examining the contents of meetings written in the meeting minutes of the board of directors, the defendant seems to have been selected as the construction supervisor for the contractor and performed the work.

Thus, the defendant is only obligated to supervise and attend the general construction works as a construction supervisor, and it is not obligated to check whether the construction is being executed according to the drawing and take measures in advance to prevent defects.

Therefore, the submitted evidence alone violated the duty of care as mandatory.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a defect in the building due to the defendant's default of obligation.

3. Determination as to the claim against the selector

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the recognition of liability, the selector, as a contractor, is liable to compensate for damages incurred in lieu of defect repairs in respect of defects arising from incomplete performance of the contract.

B. The 1st selected parties related to the Selection’s assertion were not included in the scope of the construction work, and thus, the Civil Works Corporation is not included in the scope of the construction.

arrow