E Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E Construction”) filed a claim for the construction cost with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and received the construction cost in excess of the reasonable construction cost that can be verified through the execution budget statement, etc. by applying a false and high-level progress of some types of work at the early stage.

The defendant asserts that the construction cost claimed by the E-construction is based on the fairness ratio of the construction process certificate prepared by the E-construction supervision group, and thus, the above construction process certificate was not prepared as a claim for the payment for completed portion, but at the time, E-construction did not provide the supervision group with the data necessary for verifying the progress rate, and the confirmation of the progress rate for calculating the progress payment is not included in the supervision duty, and the above construction process certificate cannot be the basis for calculating the progress payment.

D has to attach the content of the inspection of completed matters indicating the rate of each type of work and the degree of progress when claiming the construction cost. This is why D demands the payment for the purpose of paying the price after confirming the actual completion inspection content. If D had known that E construction had prepared and submitted false evidentiary data, the payment for completed matters should not be made according to the claimed amount. Thus, this constitutes a false claim for completed portion in itself.

The total cost of each type of work in the execution budget statement exceeds the total cost of each type of work solely on the cumulative amount claimed by E-construction up to 12 times in the case of a common snow, basic file, soil and earth mounds, reinforced concrete, waterproof construction, and unclaimed construction. As such, at least for the above type of work, there was a clear falsity and excessive demand.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case.

Judgment

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court deemed that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged of this case.