logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.07.23 2019나18705
공사대금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or deletion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court below's findings and determination of the first instance court is justifiable in view of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, and there is no error as alleged in the ground for appeal by the plaintiff). The court of first instance's determination of the first instance court's first instance court's fifth and the second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance

In addition, following the fifth 16th tier of the judgment of the first instance, "The first floor parking lot part shall be clearly stated in the design drawing (A evidence 3)" shall be added:

In addition, according to the construction contract of this case, the part of the "Defendant A" through 7 of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance that "it is difficult to see that the part (37 pages out of the appraisal document of the first instance appraiser D) of the ground floor (parking lot) with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff constitutes an additional work unrelated to the construction work of this case," which is included in the scope of the construction of this case.

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance is added as follows.

“(D) Even if the Plaintiff claimed additional construction works, the amount remaining after deducting the cost of the instant construction works saved by replacing the existing construction works with the said additional construction works in order to seek construction costs in addition to the construction cost incurred by the instant additional construction works. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

For example, the removal and relocation of the 2 and 3th floor of the appraisal report of the first trial appraiser D.

arrow