공사대금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment in addition to adding the judgment under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the defendant's assertion and evidence supplemented by the appellate court, since the judgment under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is added.
2. The portion to be determined additionally
A. Defendant’s assertion ① around September 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 3,640,00 to the victim N (M) by negligence during the process of the J work.
However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the agreed amount, F paid KRW 3.64 million to N, the said amount should be deducted from the instant settlement amount.
② Since F paid 10 million won as part of the instant settlement amount to K around March 2018, F shall also be deducted from the instant settlement amount.
B. (1) First, we examine the claim.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and the purport of the oral argument, the N (M representative) suffered damage on September 11, 2017 from adjoining wastes at the J construction site, including 2.3 million won of the damage compensation statement and written agreement that the N (M representative) agreed to compensate for the damage. It is recognized that the above amount is settled at the lower right side of the above detailed statement of damage compensation, and that the above amount is stated as the "accident's hospital expenses, hospital expenses, mental damage settlement amount of 1,340,000."
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the N's factory roof was damaged by the plaintiff's negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The date N prepared a written agreement and a detailed statement of compensation for damage was September 1, 2017, which was before the settlement agreement of this case was reached, and even if the plaintiff and the defendant were to have no mentioning about the above compensation when the settlement agreement of this case was reached on September 30, 2017, in light of the circumstances where the plaintiff and the defendant did not mention about the above compensation for damage.