공동분담금
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, it shall interpret the provision that the instant Convention limits the Plaintiff’s right of representation in the meeting of the 11st Steering Committee on June 15, 201, which stipulates that the Plaintiff shall obtain approval from the Steering Committee for the confirmation and alteration of the execution budget, as well as that the Plaintiff’s right of representation shall be interpreted. 2) As such, at the meeting of the 11st Steering Committee on June 15, 2011, 8.29% of the total construction cost of the instant case was determined as the execution budget, the lower court rejected all the allegations that the Plaintiff’s disbursement in excess of the execution budget is invalid as an act outside the scope of power of representation
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the validity of a contract setting the scope of cost sharing among the members of a joint contractor and the partnership, omitting judgment, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 5, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that it is difficult to deem the Defendant’s delay in payment of the Defendant’s contribution to have justifiable grounds as stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court omitted its judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.