공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below ruled against the plaintiff as to Defendant B Co., Ltd., which orders payment below.
1. The reasons why this part of the claim against Defendant CF is stated are as follows: (a) except that the “Evidence No. 4” in Chapter 6 of the first instance judgment, “No. 8, 2014,” “No. 8, 2015,” “No. 4,” “No. 18, 2015,” “No. 4,” and “No. 4, 7, 2015, i.e., the corresponding part (including the number No. 4, 20, 20, 200, 200, 20, 2000, 200, 200
(The first instance court's findings and determination are justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this court was presented additionally to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court.) 2. Claim against Defendant B
A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of the instant construction cost and additional construction cost against Defendant B, and the first instance court rendered a judgment citing only the instant construction cost and partial damages for delay, excluding the amount of additional construction cost.
In this regard, the plaintiff appealed only for the portion of the additional construction cost in the judgment of the court of first instance.
B. On December 8, 2014, while entering into the instant construction contract with Defendant B, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for additional construction works with Defendant B, the construction cost of which is KRW 1,100,000, under which the construction cost is KRW 1,100,000, the Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim shall pay the additional construction cost after 30 days from the date of completion of the construction work, and the additional construction work was completed on January 15, 2015.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the additional construction cost of KRW 1,100,000 and damages for delay.
C. Defendant B, who was sent a petition of appeal, etc. on October 12, 2018, did not appear on the date of the instant pleading, and did not submit a reply and other preparatory documents. Therefore, it is deemed that the confession of the Plaintiff’s said assertion was made pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the Supreme Court rendered a declaration on October 31, 2013.