logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.02.16 2015가단39528
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,950,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 19, 2015 to February 16, 2017.

Reasons

On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for a construction project with a small and medium industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tan Heavy Industries Co., Ltd."), setting the price of KRW 1 billion in total, the period of construction from March 18, 2014 to July 31, 2014, which sets up 7.5 tons showes, 30 tons showes, etc.

On December 29, 2014, Tae Tae Heavy Industries entered into a contract for warranty of defects between the defendant and the guarantee creditor, the guarantee creditor, the guarantee amount of KRW 50 million, and the warranty period of defects and the warranty period of liability, and submitted the same warranty period to the plaintiff.

Thai Heavy Industries installed machinery to the Plaintiff according to the above construction contract, and received KRW 1 billion from the Plaintiff.

On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a warranty bond on the ground that the defect occurred in the machinery installed under the instant contract and the repair is necessary.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won of the warranty amount, since the defect occurred in the shock machine installed under the above construction contract, etc., and the cost of covering 50 million won of the warranty amount is incurred or expected to occur. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 50 million won of the warranty amount.

In full view of the records and images of Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 23 (including the number of branch numbers) and the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal commission against Gap by this court, the appraiser is recognized as having appraised the defects and their repair costs claimed by the plaintiff, such as the attached appraisal statement.

The plaintiff asserts that the appraiser should not partially limit the defendant's liability for some items, but the result of the appraiser's appraisal is the method of appraisal.

arrow