하도급대금보증금 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 17,904,203 against the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute in the judgment of the court of first instance and its related thereto on December 3, 2013.
1. The basic facts;
2. Determination as to the request for payment of subcontract consideration and direct payments to the Defendants
A. The court's explanation on this part of the parties' arguments is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the following "24,191,00,000 won" and "24,529,800,000 won" and "24,529,800,000 won" shall be added to the 3th sentence of the first instance judgment:
page 7 18 deleted.
The following shall be added to the 5th page:
Defendant B, on May 16, 2013, notified the termination of the instant contract and demanded the Defendant BA to deliver the instant construction site to the Defendant BA, through the official text of the “Notice of Termination of the Agreement and Claim for Delivery on the Site”.
이에 대하여 한일건설은 2013. 5. 27.자 공문을 통하여 피고 B학원에게 ① 기성청구 대금으로 금회기성 631,800,000원, 추가공사대금 376,000,000원을 합한 1,007,800,000원, ② 설계변경에 따른 금액으로 ㉠ 토목도면 물량산출 오류 1,002,000,000원, ㉡ 대지경계 변경에 의한 물량변경 155,000,000원, ㉢ 도면오기로 인한 토공물량 누락 2,170,000,000원, ㉣ 철근결속 100%에 의한 노무비 증가 1,049,000,000원을 합한 4,376,000,000원, 총 5,383,800,000원의 미지급 공사대금을 청구하며 유치권행사를 주장하였다.
CHAPTER 8, 13, 13, following the “13,” added “51.”
No. 9, 15, 17, i.e., the Defendant
up to “the” as follows:
On April 8, 2013, the construction cost of the instant construction was KRW 3,786,240,00, and the unpaid construction cost was KRW 77,240,000. Among them, the part of the instant construction work was KRW 17,903,203, and thereafter, the Plaintiff arbitrarily dismantled 27,268,200, which is included in the flag.