beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning of this Court concerning this part is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the
Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, "I" in Part 17 of the judgment of the second instance is referred to as "I (hereinafter in this case, referred to as "the defendant, etc.")".
Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court, the term “this subcontracted project” in the 16th sentence shall be deemed to read “the subcontracted project in this case due to the failure to perform the contract terms of the ordering person.”
From 5th to 6th to 5th to 5th to 5th to 6th to 7th to 5th to 7th to 5th to 7
2) On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the electricity fee of KRW 46,750,120, which was paid by the instant joint contractor upon the suspension of the subcontracted project for a long period of time, and requested the Defendant to pay the expenses for groundwater purification services (such as civil engineering basic construction works, building structure installation works, wastewater treatment facilities operation, authorization and permission expenses, period of suspension of construction, etc.) related to the suspension of construction (hereinafter “public document on May 29, 2015”), ② the public document stating that the construction has not yet been resumed under the instant service contract on September 2, 2015; ② the unpaid construction cost of KRW 349,241,087; KRW 71,04,470; and actual expenses paid during the suspension of construction; KRW 101,457; and KRW 29,259,200 each of the above public documents sent to the Defendant on September 25, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 13, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's claim is the plaintiff, and ① the plaintiff's basic civil works and construction cost of building structures conducted by the plaintiff in accordance with the service contract of this case, and the water processing place for 102 days.