약정금
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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the judgment is used or the judgment under paragraph (3) is added as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Article 3(1) of the 5th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed to be “the order of the Korea Road Corporation”, and Article 3(1) of the 5th part shall be deemed to be “Article 2”.
The 6th class 9 to 13th class of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.
[C] The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,419,343,00 of the total sales revenue in 2016 (i.e., KRW 1,056,543,500, KRW 2,362,80,000, which was recognized earlier) by ordering the Defendant to undertake construction works of KRW 2,362,80,000 from the Plaintiff in 2016 (i.e., KRW 1,056,543,543,000, KRW 2,362,80,000). As such, even if the sales amount as of the fiscal year exceeds KRW 2,00,00,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the service cost for the year 2016 (=3,419,343,000, KRW 5
According to the fact-finding results of the court of first instance on December 14, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Korea Highway Corporation at KRW 2,362,80,000 which was ordered by the Korea Highway Corporation as the price for some of the construction works among the “K” as ordered by the Korea Highway Corporation at KRW 2,362,80,000. Accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the sales of KRW 164,00,000 have occurred on December 31, 2016.
However, even if the Defendant’s sales revenue of KRW 164,00,000 in the year 2016, supra, was combined with KRW 1,056,543,000, which was recognized as above, the Defendant’s sales revenue of KRW 2016 in the year 2016 did not reach KRW 2 billion. Moreover, the Defendant’s order that the said construction was ordered by O was not by the Plaintiff’s business activity, but by competitive bidding, did not conflict between the parties, and thus, the above sales revenue of KRW 164,00,000 is the Plaintiff’s service cost.