beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant’s disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers against the Plaintiff on March 4, 2015.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case are stated are as follows: (a) the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sept. 2, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27475, the same shall apply hereinafter); (b) the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 573, Sept. 23, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 573, Sept. 23, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (d) the “20914” of the 5th 4th 2014 as the “2014”; and (e) the 6th 6th 21 through 10th 7th , and 13th 7th .
2. A new part.
A. From No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 21 to No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following are newly provided.
1) The fact that the instant contract is the total contract amounting to KRW 680,352,750 of the contract amount, as well as the settlement of actual expenses, is acknowledged as above.
However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence mentioned above as well as evidence Nos. 3, 23, 24, 27, 30, 33 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same) and evidence Nos. 3, 27, 30, 30, 33, and 15, the Plaintiff entered into an additional agreement with the Intervenor to receive the full amount of the instant contract only where all services specified in the instant contract are provided through the settlement of actual expenses between the Intervenor and the Intervenor, and if some services are not performed or incomplete, it would not receive the corresponding contract amount. It is reasonable to deem that such additional agreement was included in the content of the instant contract.
Therefore, if the Plaintiff, as the total amount of the instant contract, provides services under the instant contract, the full amount of the instant contract should be paid without undergoing a separate settlement procedure for actual expenses.