손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the defendant, except for further determination as to the defendant’s assertion as set forth in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and such conclusion is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was dismissed, was dismissed to the effect that “The Intervenor appealed against the Defendant, and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Da293039) is currently pending,” of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The Intervenor appealed to the Supreme Court 2018Da293039, but the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court 2018Da293039, March 14, 2019.”
In the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance, the part of “Article 4 (Adjustment of Contract Amount)” among “the special terms of this case” shall be deleted.
3. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion
A. 1) The summary of the allegation 1) The Defendant’s prior siren that the Defendant would deliver to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant siren”).
The Defendant’s act of submitting false cost accounting data against the Defendant was before the conclusion of the instant contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the instant subcontract between the Defendant and the Intervenor. Thus, at the time of submitting the aforementioned false cost accounting data, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in the status of the Defendant’s performance assistant, and there is no reason attributable to the Defendant regarding the above act of submitting false cost accounting data. (ii) The Defendant’s employee belonging to the Defendant did not have any reason for the Defendant’s act of submitting the aforementioned false cost accounting data. (iii) On August 27, 2013, which was before the conclusion of the instant contract and the subcontract, submitted to the Plaintiff a request for change of form to change the first changed model from the proposed model to the first changed model, and at this time, attached a quotation stating the unit price of the first changed model.