지체상금 반환 등
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, as follows, on the ground that "the judgment on the claim for the refund of the delayed delay compensation in Article 3-B of the judgment of the court of first instance" is the same as the part on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except
2. As to the assertion that the completion was delayed due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the compensation for delay (as to the determination on the claim for the refund of the compensation for delay), there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff passed the completion inspection before the completion date and passed the completion inspection on July 18, 2013. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the construction was delayed due to unexpected cause or cause attributable to the Defendant.
However, since an agreement on liquidated damages for delay is scheduled for the contractor to pay the liquidated damages for delay in delay in the completion of the work within the agreed period, in case where the contractor fails to complete the work and deliver it to the contractor, and the contractor is liable to pay the liquidated damages for delay, the court may reduce the liquidated damages for delay calculated under the agreement in accordance with Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, where it recognizes that the amount of the liquidated damages for delay calculated under the agreement is excessive beyond the scope of ordinary people's acceptance, by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the status of the party to the agreement, the purpose and content of the agreement, the motive behind which the contractor plans the liquidated damages, the comparison of the actual damages and the amount of the liquidated damages, the transaction practices at the time and economic conditions, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da1386, Sept. 4, 200
① Although the Plaintiff submitted a completion inspection institute, it was returned to the effect that it is impossible to implement the completion inspection procedure due to the failure to settle the final design (Evidence A 22), and the final amendment contract was concluded after the completion of the completion plan (Evidence A 10).