공사대금 등
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim extended in the trial of the court.
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows.
The main issue of the instant case is whether to reduce the number of delayed days and liquidated damages, and it is appropriate to reduce the amount by 50% in full view of the relevant legal principles and all the evidence on the progress of the instant construction works, excluding the number of delayed days, as the period during which it can be deemed that the Plaintiff used to change the ground to a safe construction method in consideration of the personal building’s nature, the importance of the safety of basic construction works at the request of the Plaintiff was changed to a safe construction method, and there was no express indication that the Plaintiff considered the load of adjacent buildings in light of the structural review report.
2. Parts to be removed or added - Of the fifth judgment of the court of first instance, all the “Defendant” under Article 31(1)1 and 2 of the General Conditions of the instant contract as “Plaintiff” shall be deemed to be “the Plaintiff,” and the “sead” under Article 7(12) of the 7th judgment shall be deemed to be a clerical error in the termination.
- The statement about the claim of the principal lawsuit against which both the plaintiff and the defendant did not appeal is presented as a basis for determining the legitimacy of the counterclaim.
-the liquidated damages for delay claimed as a counterclaim shall be raised from KRW 1,967,460,00 to KRW 903,870,00 (249 days of delay), and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax, and the technical review expenses for construction design drawings shall be deleted, and the relevant statements shall be deleted, and the amount of damages claimed to remain after offsetting the claim for progress payment shall be 798,720,000.
- The statements in the evidence Nos. 43 through 48 (including each number) are not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, that is, the number of days of delay, whether to reduce the penalty for delay, and the claim for the cost of re-facilities at the temporary fence.