(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.01.15 2018나54580

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) 춘천지방법원 2020.01.15 2018나54580

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case brought by the court of first instance as set forth in the second below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts 4, 17, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted, and the following shall be added to the 5th page 13:

However, on October 22, 2019, the appellate court held that the Defendant, who refused to receive materials, returned the materials held by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and the amount equivalent to the price reaches KRW 7,116,493, the fact that the Plaintiff was not under dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant is a person, or that the Defendant is a person, or that the entire purport of the evidence evidence No. 15 and the oral argument is recognized.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return materials to the Defendant extinguished.

As to this, the Defendant returned the materials received from the first Defendant and other materials.

Although it is alleged that there is a lack of quantity or quantity, it is reasonable to view that the entries in the evidence No. 9 are the same as the quantity and quantity of the material that the plaintiff supplied to the defendant, and the quantity and condition of the material that the plaintiff must return to the defendant are the same as the quantity and condition of the material that the plaintiff has stored. In addition to the above, the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as the statement in the evidence No. 9, is insufficient to accept the defendant's argument. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 58,215,00 (i.e., the unpaid construction cost of KRW 57,500,000 for damages equivalent to the return cost of KRW 715,000).

Of the above money, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 53,166,120 after the date of occurrence of such obligation.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2020.01.15 2018나54580

-수원지방법원 2016.08.31 2015나39859

-부산지방법원 2018.10.19 2017나60925

-대법원 1982. 6. 22. 선고 82누10 판결

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2013.10.25 2013고단1346