하자보수금 등
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim (Counterclaim Claim), the part of KRW 194,034,601 is to be applied.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) of Article 2 at the end of 10, 17, 10, 17, 2 at the end of 1, 2 at the end of 11, 2 at the end of 16, 2 at the end of 12, 2 at the end of 15, 2 at the end of 16, 2 at the end of 16, 2 at the end of 15, and 3 at the end of 16, 2 at the end of 15, 2 at the first instance court's decision as follows 3, 2 at the end of 3, 2 as described in 3, 3, and 2 at the same time as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and therefore, it is cited as is in accordance with the main sentence
2. Additional parts
A. The part of the 10th 17th am of the judgment of the court of first instance (as seen above, since the date of completion of the construction agreement of this case was changed to December 10, 201 through the letter of performance of the construction agreement of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the execution rejection of this case merely aims to confirm the defendant's responsibility for failure to comply with the initial date of completion of the construction agreement and does not intend to change the date of completion of the contract cannot be accepted).
B. The 11th end of the judgment of the first instance court (the Defendant, as the instant construction was completed on December 21, 201, and delivered documents related to the completion to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s approval for use was made on February 13, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it).
C. The defendant asserts that the 15th end of the judgment of the court of first instance is not recognized as damages, since the agreement for liquidated damages was invalidated in accordance with the execution letter of the instant case in which the defendant shall compensate for actual damage caused by the delay in construction.
However, as long as the agreement on the liquidated damages for delay does not have been invalidated in the letter of performance of this case, or it does not have to exclude the liquidated damages for delay, the letter of performance of this case.