공사대금 등
1. Defendant B and Defendant B, of the part concerning the principal lawsuit of the first instance judgment, exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid:
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the payment of the construction cost (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant C filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of damages equivalent to the cost of defect repair, KRW 8,271,00, and damages for delay. The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the principal lawsuit, and dismissed Defendant C’s counterclaim.
As to this, the plaintiff and the defendants appealed against only the part against each of the part against which the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiff's claim.
2. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendants citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence presented in the court of first instance is added to the evidence presented in
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the deletion of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the counterclaim claim by Defendant C as set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.
3.As for the fifth part, the following shall be added to the second part:
Although the Plaintiff asserted that a total of KRW 19,851,273 was required for storage and additional construction, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, there is no reason for the part that exceeds 17,157,027 won of additional construction costs, which is recognized prior to the plaintiff's above assertion.
Meanwhile, the Defendants asserted to the effect that it is improper for the appraiser G to appraise the additional construction cost as KRW 17,157,027, while the appraiser’s appraisal result is based on the empirical rule.