추가공사대금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the Plaintiff’s appeal is the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds asserted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from those already asserted in the court of first instance.
Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
(2) The lower court’s findings and determination of the first instance court is justifiable even if the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court was presented, and there were no errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant). 2. The lower court’s additional determination was based on the 4th 18th eth 18th 1 of the first instance court’s decision (4th eth eth son
The plaintiff did not reflect the defendant's excessive demand and change in the appraisal result of the appraiser E of the first instance trial, and the plaintiff paid to the cooperation company related to the construction project of this case, but did not reach KRW 261,304,805, the judgment of the first instance judged the total construction cost of this case as KRW 211,912,616. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that additional construction cost should be recognized.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone recognizes that the materials listed in the evidence No. 9 were required for the instant construction, or it is insufficient to compute the objective price of the materials, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s statement in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, claiming that it was paid to the subcontractor in relation to the instant construction project, is difficult to believe that the amount was paid to the subcontractor under any specific pretext, and there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was KRW 26,740,000 for design cost when preparing the design drawing at the Defendant’s request
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion can be accepted.