채무부존재확인
1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts are equivalent to the amount ordering additional payments.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the modification or addition of part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). 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. Any alteration or addition;
A. Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the building of this case “the building of this case” in Part 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “the building of Incheon-gu B, Nam-gu, C ground level 1 and the building of the five-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the building
B. On March 24, 2011, and October 21, 2011, according to the results of the fact inquiry of appraiser D of this court on March 24, 2011, and the results of the fact inquiry of appraiser D of this court on October 21, 201, "The results of the fact inquiry of appraiser D of this court on March 24, 2011, according to the results of the fact inquiry of appraiser D of the first instance court on appraiser D of the first instance court on March 24, 2011 and the results of the fact inquiry of appraiser D of the first instance court on October 21, 201."
(c)Nos. 4, 10, 10, 3, and 11 of the first instance court ruling are respectively dismissed by the court of first instance.
Part 12 of the decision of the court of first instance is "(including each number) Nos. 3 through 5 (including each number)" in Part 8 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be " alone with each statement of Nos. 3 through 5 (including each number)."
(e)on the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:
[C] The Plaintiff’s other assertions as follows. However, in light of the following reasons based on the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of pleading, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's argument Nos. 1 of this case is a private construction project with a cost of less than 3 billion won, and the appraiser's other expenses and environmental preservation expenses are incurred in the cost statement.