공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2); and (b) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (3) above, are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the
2. The portion to be used for repair shall be referred to as “appraisals” collectively as “appraisals of the first instance trial.”
8. 5 pages 8: “The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff” shall be added to “The witness E and F, respectively.”
After the 9th 7th 7th eth eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.
10 pages 13-14 of the 10th page 13-14 provides that “No evidence exists to prove the above assertion of the Plaintiff,” “It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the Plaintiff and the witness E of the trial party witness submitted by the Plaintiff has agreed to preserve it as a preservation cycle, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.”
3. The further determination of this Court
A. The Plaintiff’s construction cost acknowledged by the first instance court as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under any repairing construction cost, pipeline construction cost for neighborhood living facilities, line home hold construction cost, and material separation cost that did not apply for appraisal due to the lack of dispute between the Defendant and the construction cost and the quantity.
Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s construction cost includes KRW 8,723,491 (i.e., the 6,075,000 (the 6,518,000 (the 544,000 (the 63,071) purchase cost of KRW 13,386 (the 48,034) purchase cost of KRW 13,386).
B. First of all, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff performed this part of the construction and the volume of its construction, etc., but according to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant already paid KRW 6,160,000 to the Plaintiff as construction cost under this part of the construction cost.