공사대금
Of the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the counterclaim of the lower judgment, the part of the claim for the removal cost of the retaining wall of the protruding.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the court shall consider the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, and determine the assertion of facts with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the ideology of social justice and equity. As long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the judgment of value and fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the fact-finding court has legally
(Article 202 and Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Act). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal claim on the following grounds: (a) recognized the existing construction cost of the instant contract and determined that the rate was applied to the agreed construction cost of the instant contract; and (b) deducted the part of the construction cost already received by the Plaintiff from the fixed construction cost calculated including value-added tax; (c) damage liability in lieu of defect repairs; and (d) the amount collected by the subcontractors, if the Plaintiff deducted the amount collected by the subcontractors, the construction
The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds of appeal are substantially disputing the above judgment of the court below, and are merely an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court.
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on calculation of the truth, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.