(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.01 2017나61386

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.01 2017나61386

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the contents asserted by the plaintiff is added, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. Where the contractor exercises the right to request repair of defects as the contractor delivers the defective object to the contractor, the contractor shall not refuse the repair of the defect on the ground of the payment of the construction cost.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant to repair defects in each of the buildings of this case, but the defendant failed to comply with this.

As such, the Plaintiff did not obtain approval for the use of each of the instant buildings due to the Defendant’s delay in repair of defects, and accordingly, incurred considerable damages to consolation money due to business losses for the period from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2016, including KRW 42,159,000, application cost for re-application for civil engineering construction permission, KRW 12,081,40, and heavy mental distress.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 6,424,00 won [the sum of each of the above amounts is KRW 64,240,400,000 (i.e., KRW 42,159,000, KRW 12,081,400, KRW 100,000] and damages for delay.

B. 1) When there is a defect in the object completed in a contract for work, the contractor may claim against the contractor for the repair of the defect, and they may claim damages in lieu of, or together with, the repair of the defect (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31914, Oct. 11, 2007). This claim is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the contractor’s claim for the construction price (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31914, Oct. 11, 2007). In addition, where both obligations are jointly performed, the parties may refuse to perform their obligations if they claim the performance of one of the parties’ obligations with the other party

The Plaintiff is the Defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 1991. 12. 10. 선고 91다33056 판결

-대법원 2021. 6. 10. 선고 2018다279804 판결

-대법원 1996. 7. 12. 선고 96다7250,7267 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.22 2016나17612

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.27 2018나214501