(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나8235

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나8235

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 reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant's assertion that the amount of warranty bond or cash corresponding to 10% of the construction price should be deducted from the construction price because the plaintiff did not perform the contract of this case while entering into the contract of this case, and the defendant argued that the amount of warranty bond or cash equivalent to 10% of the construction price should be deducted from the construction price. Thus, according to the Eul's evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to deliver the warranty bond or cash equivalent to 10% of the construction price. Meanwhile, according to the above facts and Eul's evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that the period of warranty stipulated in the contract of this case is one year from the date of the installation of the delivery, and the plaintiff and the defendant adjusted the construction of this case around August 19, 2013. Thus, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant argued the deduction of the amount of warranty bond or cash equivalent to 10% of the construction price within the period of warranty of the construction price of this case, however, it cannot be allowed to claim the deduction of the amount of warranty bond itself.

B. As the Defendant’s assertion on the deduction of the amount of defect repair exists in the instant construction, the Defendant asserts that the amount of defect repair should not be deducted from the construction cost or that the construction cost equivalent to the amount of defect repair should not be paid until the defect repair is completed. Therefore, first, this is due to the fact that some of the circumstances mentioned above exist in the instant construction works, i.e., the failure to install a set of three tower boxes, is due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the prior construction works, and the function stated in the written request for proposal attached

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.12 2019나205603

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.06 2013가단296963

-수원지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나40425

-서울고등법원 2016.01.29 2014나2048017

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.01.21 2020가단1945