공무원 직무 위반에 대한 손해배상
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
On August 5, 2014, the prime Regional Land Management Office, which belongs to the Defendant, ordered 442,00,000 won for one of the non-national highwayB works between the Korea Maintenance and Management Company and the Korea Maintenance and Management Company, and paid 309,117,200 won in advance to the Korea Maintenance and Management Company on August 13, 2014.
On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with Korea Maintenance and Management Co., Ltd. for C construction, and supplied it to places, such as the rental age, red, old, and suncheon, designated by the said company.
The Hanju Regional Land Management Office on December 30, 2014
Under the premise that the construction work described in the subsection has been completed, the remainder amounting to 126,916,000 won (the remainder after deducting part of the liquidated damages from the balance contracted) has been paid to the Korea Maintenance and Management Corporation.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Korea Maintenance and Management Co., Ltd. as Suwon District Court 2015 Gohap66154.
On October 2, 2015, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that the Korea Maintenance & Management Co., Ltd. shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 592,396,00 and damages for delay, and the above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] The Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and prepared a false public document as if it was completed, and paid the construction cost equivalent to thirty percent of the construction cost to the above company, which was not actually completed.
If the Defendant did not make the above mistake, the Plaintiff was able to receive the said construction cost by completing the remaining 30% construction work after provisional attachment or direct claim.
As such, by paying the construction cost corresponding to the portion of 30% that the Plaintiff had to receive to Korea Maintenance and Management Company, the Plaintiff suffered from the damages that the Plaintiff could not receive as construction cost (=42,600,000 x 0.3) that amount to 132,60,000 that amount to 30% above.