logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2016나2009177
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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, and the reasons for the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the part of the court of first instance (Articles 5 and 14, and 6, to 7) is used as follows, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. 40% of the liability ratio is limited to 40% of the total amount of the judgment of the court of first instance. The joint supply and demand company of the method of joint performance basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, and in the case where the joint supply and demand company, in particular, bears the joint and several liability of the members pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act if the joint supply and demand company entered into a subcontract with individual members, other than a joint supply and demand company, have the subcontractor bear the obligation directly to the subcontractor according to their share ratio.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff issued a written guarantee of subcontract payment for the portion corresponding to one’s share of the construction cost of the instant subcontract; (ii) the Plaintiff issued a written guarantee of subcontract payment for the portion corresponding to one’s share of the construction cost of the instant subcontract, but (iii) the construction cost of the instant subcontract was not separately stated in the agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, based on the overall purport of the written evidence No. 3, No. 4, and No. 3 and No. 4, and (iv) the entire purport of the argument.

arrow