beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.06.21 2016나53194

공사대금

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following additional judgments as to the allegations emphasized by the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff removed asbestos through the subcontractor before the Defendant cancels the instant contract. The removal of asbestos during the instant construction constitutes 80% of the entire process and the Plaintiff’s payment of the subcontract price. As such, the Plaintiff’s payment for the performance of the instant construction ought to be calculated on the premise of the foregoing.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff completed the removal of asbestos in the instant contract, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff did not remove the 2, 3rd toilet asbestos in the instant real estate, the C, and the 3rd restaurant; and (b) the specifications of the instant contract basically include the removal of the 2,3rd 2, and the removal of asbestos in the 3rd cafeteria; and (c) there is no content to exclude the removal of asbestos in the 2,3rd cafeteria and the 3rd cafeteria from the removal of asbestos in the 3rd cafeteria; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(B) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the part of the instant contract constitutes 80% of the total process. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.