손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the “Framework Act on the Construction Industry” in Chapter 3-4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as the “Framework Act on the Construction Industry”; (b) the “construction work” in Chapter 4-2 shall be deemed as the “infrastructure work”; and (c) the “work site” in Chapter 5-8 shall be deemed as the “labor cost”; and (d) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial shall be deemed as indicated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the additional claim in paragraph 2 below; and (b) therefore,
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion that "C Infrastructure Corporation" (hereinafter "the construction of this case") omitted water supply, sewerage, sewage, and excellent new construction works, and does not coincide with the drawings of electricity and telecommunications construction works. The defendant ordered the plaintiff, a subcontractor of the construction of this case, through K, who is the defendant's employee, to perform new construction and alteration works at the site of the construction of this case, and the plaintiff performed new construction and alteration works as ordered by the above K.
Nevertheless, the defendant did not intentionally omit the construction cost of the modified construction portion and did not reflect it in the construction cost of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff by omitting the construction cost of the changed construction work as above.
B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff changed or additionally performed the instant construction work. Even if the Plaintiff partially performed the modified or added construction work, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was treated as a subcontractor of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is the subcontractor of the instant construction work, is without merit, as to the remainder of the construction work.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the court of first instance shall be dismissed.