손해배상(기)
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 of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.
2. Judgment on the argument at the appellate court
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the agreement on the settlement of accounts in the instant case does not include additional construction costs, even in the court of this case, that the agreement on the settlement of accounts in the instant case includes only the part of the period, but does not include the part of the additional construction costs, so the Defendant has the obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the additional construction costs
However, the Defendant suspended the instant construction project on September 1, 2016 and demanded the Plaintiff to settle the construction details up to that point. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff accepted the request and requested the agreement to the Defendant on September 20, 2016 by sending the instant written agreement and a statement of settlement to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s person in charge agreed on the instant other settlement agreement at the instant construction site office. In light of various circumstances, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion even if all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was collected and there is no other sufficient evidence to see the same.
Plaintiff
We do not accept the argument.
B. The Plaintiff asserted partial revocation of a compromise contract, inasmuch as the instant settlement agreement, which is a compromise contract, includes additional construction costs, the Plaintiff made an error as to “matters other than dispute that is the object of reconciliation,” and thus, asserts that the part concerning additional construction costs under the compromise contract in the instant case is revoked and the Defendant claim damages equivalent to the additional construction costs.
However, the phrase “matters other than a dispute which may be revoked by mistake in a reconciliation agreement is not the subject of a dispute, but the subject matter of the dispute, which is the premise or basis of the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da70285, Dec. 27, 2007). The additional construction cost is also between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.