물품자재납품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even when considering the testimony of the witness D and the evidence submitted in the trial.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be corrected;
(a)Paragraphs 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:
D. The minutes of April 10, 2014 (No.S. evidence 6) state that "I, by April 30, 2014, enter into an agreement through (C) (A) (A) with respect to the second week of Section 4 of the GSP by April 30, 2014." However, even according to the records of the above minutes, I urge the Plaintiff to supply by April 30, and supply by April 30, and supply is not completed, there is no statement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the content that the delivery schedule will be changed by April 30, 2014 as stipulated in the existing modified contract, and there is no statement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff bears the Defendant's equipment charges, personnel expenses, etc. incurred after April 30, 2014.
In addition, by April 30, the subject and object of the mutual aid on the equipment fee, personnel expenses, etc. are also unclear when the supply is not completed.
Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the delivery period of steel structure on April 30, 2014 only with the content of the above minutes.
⑤ At the time of entering into and implementing the instant supply contract, the witness D who was in charge of the Defendant’s practice as the Defendant’s director at the time of entering into and implementing the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff’s general manager of construction works is not the director of the E who signed the said minutes, but the director of the F division was not present at the above meeting, and the F division chief was not present at the above meeting.