공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below to the plaintiff’s assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
(A) the summary used in the judgment of the court of first instance is also quoted as it is); 2. Additional determination
A. The appraisal result in this Court case 2016Kadan65055 case (hereinafter “relevant case”) in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not include an amount equivalent to 25% of the ordinary construction cost due to the omission of general management expenses, safety management expenses, taxes, public charges, and profits, etc., by applying the cost calculation method in the standard production unit. In calculating the labor cost, the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay a unit of time at the actual construction site is not considered, and there is an error that the Plaintiff deemed part of the part claimed to be an additional construction as a duplicate construction. Thus, it is difficult to accept it as it is.
나. 판단 감정은 법원이 어떤 사항을 판단하면서 특별한 지식과 경험칙을 필요로 하는 경우에 판단의 보조수단으로서 그러한 지식과 경험을 이용하는 것이므로, 법관이 감정 결과에 따라 사실을 인정한 경우에 그것이 경험칙이나 논리법칙에 위배되지 않는 한 위법이라고 할 수 없다고 할 것인데(대법원 2017. 6. 8. 선고 2016다249557 판결 등 참조), 을 제10호증의 기재, 당심 법원의 감정인 G에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 감정인 G은 원고가 2차 추가공사라고 주장하는 ㉠ 2층 복도계단 방수공사 및 서기목 작업공사, ㉡ 주방 칸막이 공사, ㉢ 실내 내화벽돌공사, ㉣ 2층 중간방 공사, ㉤ 준 2층 공사, ㉥ 전체 전기 등 설치 공사, ㉦ 실내 1 ~3층간 철...