공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “ September 13, 2013.” of the first instance judgment as “ September 17, 2013.” (b) No. 5, No. 7 of the first instance judgment as “ September 17, 2013.” (c) and the court’s new decision as to the Plaintiff’s new argument is added as follows. (d) On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the second through 12 are the same as the part on the grounds of the first instance judgment except for the second to 6 pages, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of
2. The addition;
A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the adjustment of the contract amount with the Defendant over several times before receiving the first construction cost.
However, when the plaintiff was unable to pay the additional construction cost due to the procedural reasons, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the construction cost reflecting the above additional construction cost through the design modification procedure at the time of the second construction.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff additional construction cost due to the modification of the design of the primary construction work and damages for delay.
B. In order for the Plaintiff to receive additional construction cost due to the modification of the design of the primary construction from the Defendant, Section 7 of Article 7 of the General Conditions for Local Government Construction Contracts
1. A person who adjusts a contract amount due to design modification;
According to Paragraph (1), an application for contract price adjustment shall be filed prior to the receipt of the cost of completion (the cost of completion by each number of vehicles in cases of long-term continuing construction projects). Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff filed an application for contract price adjustment with the Defendant on or before September 17, 2013, on the basis of each description of Evidence No. 22, 30, 54 through 59, and 61 through 63, which is the date of receipt of the cost of completion of the primary construction works, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.