설계용역대금 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant 64,132.
1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is added to the evidence
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's new arguments, such as Article 420 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the conclusion of paragraph (4)).
7. 7.2 to 3. The appraisal results of appraiser G, this court's " shall be added to "the appraisal results of the first instance court appraiser G, the first instance court's evaluation results".
9 The appraisal results of appraiser G and this court shall be referred to as "the appraisal results of the first instance court appraiser G and the first instance court" in two parallels in the first lower court.
10 9 pages "641,324,640 won" shall be "705,457,104 won (=641,324,640 won of value-added tax64,132,464 won)".
12. The following shall be added between 12 Hair Hair 6,7:
“E) Even in accordance with the text of paragraphs (6) and (7) of Chapter IV of the instant service contract (hereinafter “instant special agreement”), it is difficult to view that the resolution at the general meeting of the Defendant set the requirements for the validity of the instant service contract as stipulated by the resolution at the general meeting of the Defendant.
Each of the above provisions is premised on the premise that the instant service contract itself is a contract concluded. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s determination of the construction design area to be modified due to the circumstances after the conclusion of the contract, and that the Plaintiff ought to accept the request for modification of the terms of the service contract.
13 4-5 parallels " Eul 5, 6, and 7, the appraisal result of appraiser G, this court's appraisal result," "A 10, Eul 5, 6, and 7, the appraisal result of the first instance court's appraiser G and the first instance court."