beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. If the Defendants asserted that the construction work in this case was settled on or around July 2012, based on the circumstances of the construction until the time, and thereafter, they agreed to proceed with the construction work in the direct manner by the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff was delegated by the Defendants, then the Plaintiff thereafter used KRW 265,20 million, which the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff, for the construction work in this case, only KRW 63,3370,00 out of the above money, for personal purposes unrelated to the construction work in this case, and used the remainder for the construction work in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for damages equivalent to KRW 21,830,00,000, which is the difference with the Defendants. The Defendants asserted that they offset the Plaintiff’s damages claim against the Plaintiff by the offset against the said construction payment claim against the Defendants.
In regard to this, the Plaintiff only used 268 million won, excluding the amount returned to the Defendants from the Defendants, for the purpose necessary for the progress of the instant construction project, and did not have used it for personal purposes unrelated to the instant construction project. Moreover, the Plaintiff spent 65 million won in excess of the amount received from the Defendants for the progress of the instant construction project. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the damages claim against the Plaintiff asserted as automatic bonds cannot be acknowledged.
B. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is that part of the above KRW 265.2 million of the Defendants’ assertion is the instant construction work.