청구이의의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of the court’s determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion by the court of first instance as to this case’s assertion by the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) When the restoration work is completed, it is not acceptable to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion as damages by uniformly calculating construction cost and design/design/design/strutation rate in accordance with the “projected price” and “the standards for engineering project cost” premised on the “project cost” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4093, Mar. 25, 2010), and the Defendant’s assertion should be rejected. 2) In a case where the victim’s tort is destroyed and damaged and needs to be repaired, if the victim bears the value-added tax required for repair, the victim may claim compensation for damages equivalent to the repair cost including the value-added tax. However, if the victim is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act and the repair falls under the supply of services that he/she used or used for his/her own business, the victim cannot claim compensation for damages from the perpetrator’s input tax amount under Article 17(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act.