용역비
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (including the Plaintiff).
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Company B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) as well as the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) on the ground as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant B’s requesting the Plaintiff to conduct an integrated test on the system of this case or failing to file an application for examination by the deadline for the completion of the contract stipulated in the service contract of this case was a failure to perform the obligation under the instant service contract, and otherwise, it is unnecessary to change the development method.
The defendants' assertion to the effect that it was replaced by other data is rejected.
Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.
In doing so, the court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant B and Defendant C, and the grounds of appeal No. 4 of Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed liable to grant a loan secured by an intermediate payment obligation and an intermediate payment obligation, and that the Plaintiff fulfilled both the exclusive team formation and business support obligation under the instant service agreement and that the Plaintiff did not perform each of the above obligations recognized under the instant service agreement.
The defendants' assertion that they had expressed their intent to refuse performance was rejected.
Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.
In doing so, it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, without exhausting all necessary deliberations.