채무부존재확인
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim extended by this Court, is as follows.
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.
1. On August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the following content: (a) the substantial repair work of the Mamo-gun, Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) located in D (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) the Plaintiff contracted the instant construction work to the Defendant:
(hereinafter “instant contract period”): The contract amount from August 10 to November 4, 2012: KRW 748,00,000 (including value-added tax)
5. Contract amount for a construction project: one million won; and
8. The rate of liquidated damages: From 1/1000 a day to 15 October 2012, 2012, a modified contract was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 30, 2012, changing the construction period of the instant contract into the contract amount of KRW 762,30,000 (including value-added tax), and the contract amount of KRW 762,30,00 (hereinafter “instant modified contract”).
The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 100,00,000 on August 17, 2012, KRW 40,000,00 on November 14, 2012, KRW 380,000 on August 8, 2013, KRW 5,000,000 on July 11, 2013, and KRW 57,000 on September 27, 2013, KRW 572,000 on a total of KRW 572,00,000 on September 27, 2013.
On the other hand, the Defendant, around December 23, 2013, transferred KRW 35,000,000, out of the payment of the construction price in the instant case, to Bangladesh Co., Ltd., and on the same day, notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the said claim.
On December 30, 2012, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant building from the Defendant and commenced the telecoming business in the instant building from December 31, 2012.
【Judgment as to the defense that evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 through 4 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's whole purport of pleading [the judgment as to the defense that evidence No. 2 is forged: The judgment as to the defense that the evidence No. 2 is forged: The following stamp image of the plaintiff's name is based on the plaintiff's seal, barring any special circumstance, the modified contract of this case (the authenticity of the entire evidence No.
As to this, the plaintiff written the remainder on the paper signed and sealed by the plaintiff in blank.