공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court's judgment except for the part of the second instance court's appeal, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The following shall be added to not more than 7 pages 4, 7, o part of the first instance judgment:
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that “The additional construction cost is limited to the difference between the time when the part of the retaining wall was designed as a reinforced retaining wall and the part was constructed as a reinforced retaining wall at the time of the instant contract, and the additional construction cost is limited to the difference when the said part was constructed as a reinforced retaining wall. However, in full view of the description and image of evidence No. 7, the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser E, the size, quantity, construction cost, current construction cost, etc. of the retaining wall constructed as a concrete retaining wall at the time of the instant contract, the above argument by the Defendant seems to have been additionally constructed as a part not included in the original contract.” From April 1, 2012 to November 25, 2016, the Defendant’s argument cannot be accepted, “or from April 1, 2012 to November 25, 2016, the sum of rent for the instant construction site corresponding to the instant construction cost plus KRW 132,510,290.”
o The part of the first instance court No. 7, 19, 8, 11, is replaced by the following contents:
“2) The agreement between the contractor and the contractor on the compensation for delay on the compensation for delay due to the delay of construction is scheduled to pay damages to the contractor for delay of the completion of the same day, and if there is an estimate of the amount of damages due to nonperformance, the obligee may claim the amount of the compensation without proving the occurrence of damages and the amount of the non-performance. However, the Defendant shall be liable to B when the contract of this case was not completed on March 2012 (Evidence B).