logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.12.11 2019나54415
물품대금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) Each of the “Defendant” in Chapter 7, 13, 10, 10, 6, and 7, 13, 14, and 7, 7, shall be deemed to be the “Defendant Company”;

(b) Each “Defendant” of the first instance court’s Class 9, 16, 11, 10, 12, 4, 7, 14, 18, and 3, 15, 3, 9, 9, 9, 16, 11, 11, 12, 4, 14, 18, and 15.

C. The phrase “reasons to exclude defects” No. 1 of the 10 pages of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

The appraiser F of the first instance trial presented an appraisal opinion to the effect that “The foregoing judgment of the appraiser F of the first instance trial is contrary to the empirical rule or is not considerably unreasonable, and the circumstance asserted by the Defendant Company alone alone is insufficient to reverse it.”

D. The phrase “reasons for exclusion from defects” No. 2 of the 10 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The appraiser F of the first instance trial presented an appraisal opinion to the effect that “The press check that the press has been carried in the enjoying site, and the sum of 14,211,074 won, such as material costs and expenses related to the construction of the enjoying building, should be excluded from the cost of repair of defects.” The above determination by the appraiser F of the first instance trial would not be contrary to the empirical rule or considerably unreasonable, and the circumstance asserted by the Defendant Company alone alone is insufficient to reverse it.”

(e)on the 11th sentence of the first instance court, the following in the table:

arrow