손해배상(기)
All appeals on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the plaintiff's argument in the court of first instance, except for the addition of the plaintiff's argument as follows, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "the date of closing argument in this case" of No. 4 through No. 9 through No. 10 of the first instance judgment is "the date of closing argument in the first instance court"; "No. 13, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 6-1, No. 7-2, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 13, the whole purport of arguments" is "the date of closing argument in this case"; "No. 11 of the fifth-party No. 5, "No. 2 of the first instance judgment" is "the date of closing argument in this case"; "No. 8 of the first instance judgment cite the Additional Contract No. 10," "No. 20 of the first instance judgment" prepared by the witness at the court.
2. Additional determination
A. On or around December 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant, and E agreed that the price for the parking machine construction works of the instant construction contract would be settled between the Plaintiff and E, and the Plaintiff and E drafted the instant secondary contract on December 10, 2017. Accordingly, the unpaid construction cost that the Plaintiff owes to E is KRW 38 million.
Therefore, even if the construction contract of this case is not rescinded and valid, it shall be unpaid to the plaintiff E.