손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff is not significantly different from the argument by the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision by the first instance court is justifiable even if the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the I and J Co., Ltd. was examined by the court of first instance.
Therefore, the reason why our court should explain this case is that Article 6 "Article 6" in Part 5, Section 7 is "Articles 6 and 11", Section 5, Section 10, Section 6, and Section 4, and Section 15 are changed into "Duty of due care and good faith of a good manager", and some of the statements are added as follows.
B. To deduct the change of the part as set forth in paragraph 2 below, it is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the attached sheet, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
On the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “shall not be added to the following,” and the phrase “shall, while at the same time, increase D’s construction gains through the reduction of construction costs.”
The trustee shall perform the trust affairs for the benefit of the beneficiary in accordance with Section 7 of the judgment of the first instance. The trustee shall perform the trust affairs for the benefit of the beneficiary.
(i) add the phrase “as”;
Part 7 of the Judgment of the first instance court
B. (n) The Defendant made a statement on November 8, 2017 to the effect that “in the event that the obligation to pay a contract deposit or to submit a guaranty insurance policy is imposed on the contractor, it will reduce the construction profit as the contractor.” However, at the same time, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “in the case of a large-scale construction project, the contract cost is so increased that the contractor would not be preferred from the truster.” Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s statement was omitted from the contract deposit provision due to the Plaintiff’s sacrifice, and the Defendant intentionally made a statement on the facts written by the Plaintiff’s employee H (Evidence No. 28) alone.