공사대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant makes an additional or supplementary judgment as to the part asserted as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance
2. Additional or supplementary judgment
A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Plaintiff did not perform other construction works than the steel framed Corporation, and the instant construction work was not completed until September 2016, and accordingly, the Mamma Corporation was executed by the Defendant. 2) As the Defendant remitted KRW 7,2250,00 to H as the Plaintiff’s partner’s payment of the instant construction work, the instant construction work amount equivalent to the said amount was extinguished by payment.
3) The Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the remainder of the construction cost because it incurred losses due to the Plaintiff’s delay of construction or defective construction works. (B) We first examine the assertion that the Plaintiff did not complete the instant construction works.
On September 2016, the Defendant stated that the construction of this case was not in dispute on the date of the sixth pleading in the first instance trial, and that it was evident in the record that the confession was made, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to be contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion as to this is rejected.
2) Next, we examine the Defendant’s assertion of reimbursement. Even if we look at the evidence and circumstances presented by the Defendant in the trial, it is insufficient to recognize that KRW 72.55 million, which the Defendant remitted to H, is valid as a legitimate repayment of the instant construction payment obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as valid. 3) Lastly, we examine the Defendant’s assertion of delay in construction and defective construction.
Although the original contract period of the instant construction project expired, it seems that there was a change in the design.