위약금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance added or added as follows and determined as to the defendant's additional assertion in the court of second instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5, 7, 10, 6, 11, 14 each of the "Article 10 (2) of the Service Contract of this case" is respectively dismissed as "Article 10 (1) 2 of the Service Contract of this case".
It is obvious that each part of the judgment of the first instance is a clerical error.
Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “each entry in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10” in Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “The Plaintiff claimed service charges under the instant service contract from 2013 to April 2017”; “The Plaintiff did not demand an adjustment of service charges according to the unit price increase rate during the time of price increase pursuant to Article 17 of the service contract of this case.”
On October 7, 2013, February 25, 2015, and May 7, 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared an official document requesting the Defendant to pay additional service costs in accordance with the rate of increase of the rate of wages during the time under Article 17 of the Service Contract of this case on three occasions on May 7, 2015, but there is no reason to deem that the above official document reached the Defendant or that the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff’s request, and there is no reason to deem that the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff’s request, the following is added later.
[Plaintiff] The Supreme Court Decision 2015Da239508, 239508, and 239515 (Counterclaim) Decided March 15, 2018, decided that even if the Defendant refused a request for the payment of service price equivalent to the increase in the market wage rate, this would be followed if the court later set the service price in consideration of various factors, such as price increase.