약정금 등
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) below.
2. Judgment added by this Court
A. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the contract of this case is invalid as it constitutes an unfair juristic act, violation of Article 29 (1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, or cancellation of the contract due to delay in construction or excessive construction cost due to the cancellation of the contract or the failure to secure earth and sand, etc. The plaintiff's claim for payment of profits based on the contract of this case without settling construction cost constitutes abuse of rights. 2) The defendant argues that it constitutes abuse of rights in light of the various circumstances of the first instance court cited prior to the decision of the court of first instance, and the evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 12 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact-finding or decision of the court of first instance, which is acknowledged in addition to the whole purport of arguments as follows, and the fact-finding or decision of the court of first instance, even if all evidence submitted by the defendant are collected to this court, it is difficult to change even if it is acknowledged as an abuse of rights.
We cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.
① The 1st and the 2nd agreements (Evidence A3 and 5) submitted by the Plaintiff relating to the first and second agreements, which are parties to the instant agreement, are affixed with the seal of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s corporate seal impression attached thereto.
In addition, the Defendant did not raise any objection prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, even though the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount calculated by deducting the profit (20%) under the instant agreement from the progress payment received from the agricultural and fishing village construction, the ordering person, according to its equity ratio from October 25, 2013 after the conclusion of the instant agreement, as the settlement amount.