약정금등반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff confirmed that the freezing warehouse of this case was constructed less than the initial design, and the Defendant prepared a written confirmation (hereinafter “instant confirmation”) stating that on April 1, 2008, “10 square meters at the time of air conditioners construction works shall be additionally executed free of charge” to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant did not implement the agreement under the instant confirmation, and thus, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance.
In regard to this, the Defendant, even though the Defendant constructed all of the freezings of this case, rejected the payment of the cost of construction by asserting the reduction of the freezings of this case, and submitted the premise that the freezing storage of this case was reduced. Since the freezings of this case had not been reduced, the Defendant cannot be viewed as bearing any obligation under the instant undertaking to the Plaintiff.
In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s respective evidence, evidence, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the instant undertaking, even if based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, was confirmed that the freezing warehouse of this case was constructed, and was prepared by the Defendant’s method of compensation for damage to the reduction of construction, and the freezing warehouse of this case was reduced.
(2) After April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the second construction contract on May 22, 2008.