공사대금
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 reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows. The Defendant’s assertion that was newly added by this court is identical to the description in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the judgment as to the assertion that was newly added by this court, and thus, citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
No. 1, 2, 15, and 15 of the second instance judgment of the first instance shall be written with "Evidence No. 1, 15, 20 of the first instance judgment, and Evidence No. 1, 24 of the first instance judgment."
The second-class 10 to 13 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.
A. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016 and the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s five-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) under which the construction was newly built on March 28, 2016, and the scheduled completion date of the completion of the construction works, with the amount of KRW 3,655,80,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the amount of KRW 1/1,000 per day per annum (hereinafter “instant contract”). After completion of the instant building, the Defendant applied for approval for use to the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 22, 2017, and obtained approval for use on April 6, 2017, Article 2(1)2(2) of the first instance judgment of “Article 4(excluding the attached Table)” as “Article 15(2)”.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s defense was completed the instant building upon obtaining approval for the use of the instant building from December 31, 2016 to April 6, 2017, when 95 days had been delayed from December 31, 2016, which is the deadline for completing the construction stipulated in the instant contract. The Defendant, as to the Plaintiff, has a claim for liquidated damages of KRW 382,031,100 due to the delay in construction (the construction price of KRW 4,021,380,000 x the rate of liquidated damages x 1/1,000 x the number of delayed days 95 days). Accordingly, the Defendant, as an automatic claim, shall offset the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against the amount equal to the Plaintiff’
B. As long as the judgment 1 disposition document is recognized as the authenticity of its formation, the court is clear and acceptable to deny its contents.