공사대금
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of “the same parts as the judgment of the court of first instance”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, under the following subparagraphs: 4, 12, 14, and 5, 15.
2. The part to be mard;
A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received a certificate of inspection of each elevator on the first half of the first instance judgment; and (b) delivered each of the above elevators to the Defendant around that time, upon receipt of the certificate of inspection of each elevator on the first half of the first instance judgment on November 18, 2013.
(B) According to the statements in Eul evidence 7-2 and witness D of the trial court, the defendant is found to have issued a certificate of acceptance to the plaintiff on November 4, 2014, but even according to witness D's testimony, the defendant was delivered the first elevator around November 18, 2013, but did not issue a certificate of acceptance on the ground that the defendant was delivered the first elevator on November 18, 2013, but was in an unstable state of breakdown, and the certificate of acceptance was delivered at the latest on November 4, 2014.
If there is no agreement on the liquidated damages for delay in the part between the first and the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be deemed that there is an agreement on the liquidated damages, and it shall not be deemed that there is an agreement on the liquidated damages, and the orderer shall be liable to prove the fact of the occurrence of the damage and the amount of the damage in order to claim
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da590 Decided March 29, 2012, etc.). As to the instant case, it is recognized that: (a) the Plaintiff carried out the materials of each elevator on August 20, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff mistakenly brought them into the materials; (c) the materials were finally brought in around October 18, 2013; and (d) the fact that each of the above elevator installation works was completed around November 18, 2013, as seen earlier; and (b) according to the above fact of recognition, it was recognized that 66 days elapsed from September 14, 2013, which was the date of payment stipulated in the instant contract.
However, in addition to the above facts of recognition, the defendant submitted.