logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.06.13 2011나78219
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, defendant corporation, Shindong Construction Co., Ltd., two Industries Co., Ltd., and Taiwan Construction Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Basic facts and

2. The reasons for the judgment on this part of the judgment on the claim for the defendant Seo-gu, Shindong Construction, and Yangsan Heavy Industries are as follows: "The plaintiff added to the 5th 21th eth eth 21th eth eth eth son's fees, re-appraisal costs, etc. incurred by the plaintiff in the previous lawsuit with the council of occupants' representatives, and deleted the part of the 6th 11th eth eth eth eth eth eth 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g e

B. Non-performance of liability; and

C. On the other hand, with the exception of dismissal as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same. B. Non-performance liability 1) The Plaintiff’s attorney fees, stamp fees, delivery fees, re-appraisal fees, etc. incurred by the Plaintiff in response to the previous lawsuit with the council of occupants’ representatives in order to respond to the Plaintiff’s assertion. As damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ failure to perform their obligations under the terms and conditions of the contract, there is a proximate causal relation with the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations. As such, among the total litigation costs incurred by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the ratio of the Defendants’ failure to perform their duties

2. Where the contractor completes and delivers a building which is the object of the contract, it is a matter of warranty even if there is any defect in the object, so it is improper to recognize the Defendants' liability for nonperformance in addition to warranty liability. Even if the Defendants' liability for default is recognized, there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff's payment of expenses and the Defendants' default liability.

arrow