공사대금 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows, except for the deletion of evidence No. 9 from No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, from the second to the second below, and from the 11th [based grounds for recognition] to the part corresponding to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3) Meanwhile, on October 1, 2009, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) drafted a written confirmation (Evidence A No. 19) that “The construction cost unpaid with respect to the portion that the Plaintiff had subcontracted from D among the instant structural construction works shall be KRW 2.4 billion.”
A person shall be appointed.
2. Determination as to the claim for construction cost (main claim)
A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that D and G are obligated to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff who is the subcontractor, and C and C have acquired the above payment obligation, and since C and C have acquired it concurrently, the defendant has the obligation to pay the construction cost jointly with C and C reconstruction Association.
B. As seen earlier, C&C’s claim for construction cost against C/C reconstruction association agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of structural aggregate construction cost. On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the construction cost was 3,303,669,840.
C Reconstruction Association agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the construction cost incurred before December 30, 2009 (Evidence 7-1 of the evidence No. 7-1). The parties recognized that the construction cost incurred before December 30, 2009 was KRW 3,303,669,840 on the date of the second pleading of the first instance trial.
[Defendant asserts to the effect that the above construction amount has been led to the confession and that it should be revoked. The witness AG testified that the signature of the evidence No. 9 (written application for confirmation of identity) that served as the basis of the above amount was not himself/herself, but it was confirmed by D that the aggregate construction amount executed under a subcontract from D was KRW 2.4 billion (A).