공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On December 29, 2009, when the construction under the five-dimensional contract for the Plaintiff’s claim was in progress, the instant contract was converted into a continuing expenditure contract that maintains the identity with the existing long-term continuing contract, and the construction period of the five-dimensional contract was extended by August 11, 2009, which is the date of the first completion of the contract. By December 10, 201, “The date of the completion of the said continuing expenditure contract was extended by December 31, 2016, which is the date of the last completion of the said continuing expenditure contract,” until December 31, 2016, the date of the last completion of the said continuing expenditure contract was extended by December 31, 2016.
The above extension of the construction period is due to grounds for which the Plaintiff is not responsible. Since the Plaintiff applied for the lawful adjustment of the contract amount, the Defendant is obliged to pay the additional indirect construction cost incurred from August 12, 2009 to December 31, 2016, the construction period extended to the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the determination on the claim for additional indirect construction costs due to extension of the construction period of the fifth multiple contracts (from August 12, 2009, the date following the date of the first completion of the fifth multiple contracts until December 10, 201, the date of the first completion of the continuing expenditure contract) extended the construction period to the date of completion of the continuing expenditure contract under the premise that the five multiple contracts and the continuing expenditure contract are not separate contracts.
However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence mentioned above, continuing expenditure contracts are separate contracts from the five main contracts, and thus, the period of construction of the five main contracts cannot be deemed extended by the date of completion of continuing expenditure contracts.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.
(1) Number of five.