(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.04 2017나2024272

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) 서울고등법원 2018.05.04 2017나2024272

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiffs' contract for the construction work on March 30, 2009 against the defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "liability for damages" of the April 2, 3, and 5, 6, and 7, "liability for damages in lieu of repair of defects and damages in lieu thereof," respectively, shall be corrected as "liability for damages in lieu of repair of defects," and the part of "Article 3-b and (c)" from 6th to 7th below shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case as described in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is

2. Parts to be dried;

B. 1) The scope of liability should be calculated as to the cost incurred in repairing the instant defect that occurred in the system creative part of the instant apartment that the Plaintiffs received and completed by the Defendant, among the instant apartment that was supplied by the Defendant, should be deemed as KRW 273,753,290.

(B) The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion (i.e., the fact-finding of appraiser A of the first instance court on September 14, 2015), (i) the Defendant first sold KRW 1,589,082,00 to the apartment complex of this case (the second apartment complex) and the third apartment complex in its neighboring area, and (ii) the Defendant should have paid KRW 307,782,00,00, which was paid to the apartment of this case, as the cost of repairing the defect. However, the Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the cost of repairing the defect in this case exceeds the above amount of the apartment of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (ii) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the defect in this case should be included in the cost of repairing the defect in the Daejeon District Court’s 2013Kagi1306,1306, 4006, and 700,000,000 won.

However, the cost of the preservation of evidence under Article 383 of the Civil Procedure Act is the cost of lawsuit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제383조

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.03.17 2015가단125231

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.09 2013가합18702

-인천지방법원 2013.08.20 2012가합32733

-서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2016나2080039

-부산지방법원 2019.07.05 2018나45749