logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2019.05.03 2018나25204
공사대금
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. The reasons for the acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding a judgment as follows, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment on the assertion on the purchase cost of materials

1. The defendant alleged in this court that the plaintiff did not immediately commence the work of the construction of this case, and that the contract was concluded on the installation works of solar structures (M, N, F, andO) on August 3, 2014 when the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the construction of this case on the same time as that of the installation works of solar structures (M, N, L), so the material of 74,780km was produced for all of the construction of this case, as recognized by the first instance court, and it cannot be deemed that the total of 150,232,090 fee, including personnel expenses, gold, transportation expenses, etc., was paid.

2. Various circumstances cited prior to the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff properly explained in the reasoning of the judgment, as well as from August 25, 2014 to September 30, 2014, requesting a gold work on the aggregate of 74,780 kilograms of solar structures E Co., Ltd. (P refers to “P.” The power generation capacity of the instant construction works is 80W.). Moreover, 24,00 kilograms “J” (270K), 11,370km, 3,160 kilograms “M” (20K), 4,430km, and each of the instant structures submitted by the Plaintiff for the implementation of its respective solar structures, such as “N” (10W), “O (100K), 11,200km (10K), and 200km, and each of the instant structures submitted to the Plaintiff for the implementation of its respective solar structures, can be easily rejected.

The fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance to this purport are legitimate.

arrow