대여금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The grounds for retrial are as follows. A. There are grounds for retrial as follows.
Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial (e.g., omission of judgment) shall be based on the presumption of evidence No. 3, while the document of evidence No. 1 is a genuine construction contract.
The above estimate consists of one copy, even though the estimated amount of KRW 2.6 billion is up to the estimated amount of KRW 2.6 billion, and is written after the conclusion of the construction contract, and the plaintiff made several arguments on this issue, but the judgment subject to a retrial did not decide thereon.
The judgment subject to review considered the result of appraiser's appraisal as justifiable, and calculated the judgment of merit.
In the case of the portion of construction works, the appraiser calculated the cost of construction work by reflecting the estimate unit price, and calculated the cost of construction work in the case of the portion of civil construction work, and the construction work portion was calculated by deeming that the portion not included in the plaintiff's duty of construction in the construction contract was unconstruction.
In addition, in the case of the panel corporation, the appraiser has committed errors such as calculating the amount exceeding the unit price in the original contract amount.
Although the Plaintiff made several arguments on this issue, the judgment subject to a retrial did not render a judgment on this issue.
B. Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The final judgment of the instant final judgment related to the instant construction project appears to have been made by the Plaintiff as a ground for retrial (confluent of the validity of the judgment) against which the Plaintiff was a criminal trial as the Defendant (Seoul District Court’s 2015Da309, Daejeon District Court 2015No3582, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do829, 2016Do829, hereinafter “the final judgment of the instant final judgment”).”
Since the judgment subject to a judgment was considered as a genuine construction contract of No. 1, the above final judgment and the terms are inconsistent with the original judgment.
2. The judgment party asserts or knows the grounds for a retrial by appeal.