간접비 청구의 소
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the preliminary claim added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
1. The court's reasoning in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "1. Basic Facts"). Thus, the court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Provided, That part of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:
[Revision] The phrase "number of days of change/number of days of period/number of days of change" in the clause of the 6-7 table of the judgment of the court of first instance as "2,16/651" shall be added to "2,16/0".
The following shall be added to the seventh list of the decision of the court of first instance:
“One-time amendment agreement entered into with the Defendant on December 24, 2014 (hereinafter “the 6th amendment agreement”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 24, 2014 (hereinafter “the 24th amendment agreement”).
(2) As to the amendment contract (Evidence 6-2 of the Evidence A), the following is indicated: “The detailed statement of the reasons for the modification: removal of a duct building, additional selection, etc. of a soil pit, etc.;” “Extension of the deadline for completion of a gold car due to the reflection of an absolute air: Extension of the deadline for completion of the construction;” and “extension of the gold car contract amounting to KRW 5,365,966,000 as KRW 5,466,031,000 due to the modification of a design as KRW 100,065,00.” In addition, on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff signed with the Defendant on two occasions the 6th amendment contract (hereinafter “the second amendment contract of February 13, 2015”).
(A) A modified contract (Evidence 6-3) states that “The detailed grounds for alteration: (a) January 1, 2015; (b) February 16, 2015; (c) the date of temporary suspension; (d) February 16, 2015; and (c) “the time limit for completion due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation due to the commencement of the operation
D. At the time of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s completion of rehabilitation procedures and the Plaintiff was appointed as a joint manager B and C by the Gwangju District Court 2014hap13 at the time of the instant lawsuit. However, on June 27, 2017, the instant lawsuit was pending, the said court decided to terminate rehabilitation procedures, and on this ground, the Plaintiff’s objection was made around July 7, 2017.