beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding), the Defendant, the victim, the F, and the reference witnesses’ statement, and the Defendant, on February 28, 201, concluded an agreement with the victim to waive all the construction expenses that had been incurred until 30 days have not yet been completed (hereinafter “instant waiver agreement”), and the completion was not completed within 30 days thereafter, and there was a cause attributable to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was clearly aware that the Defendant did not have the right to claim construction expenses against the victim.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on different premise is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming construction cost payment against the victim C at the Suwon District Court Ansan-dong located in Ansan-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Suwon-si to the effect that “the Defendant (victim) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Defendant) the amount of KRW 1,116,00,000,000 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.”
The Defendant, as a contractor, filed a lawsuit to the same purport that he/she would be paid the construction cost to the victim as a contractor in relation to the Seo-gu Incheon Down Construction Project. However, on February 28, 2011, the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would waive all the construction cost that he/she had proceeded with the victim when he/she could not complete the construction within 30 days from the date of completion of the said waiver agreement, and the Defendant did not have any claim against the victim for construction cost.
Nevertheless, the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of false construction cost against the victim, and the other contract is not a true construction contract.