보증금청구
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of waiver and extinguishment of the right to claim damages on the ground that the Plaintiffs and AH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AH”) are limited to the claim for liquidated damages, and that the right to waiver or extinguishment is still limited to the claim for liquidated damages as the Plaintiffs and AH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AH”) settle through the instant agreement and the recommendation for reconciliation
Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the effect of the
The Supreme Court's decision cited in the ground of appeal is inappropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike this case.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs cannot vest in the contract bond under each of the instant contracts, on the grounds that, in addition to the damages incurred by delay of each of the instant construction works, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss, other than the damages incurred by delay of each of the instant construction works, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, since each of the instant contracts provides for the liquidated damages agreement separate from the contract bond attribution agreement, and that AH
Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the estimate of