logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.01 2018나2056030
공사대금
Text

1. Of the parts concerning the principal lawsuit against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts shall be exceeded:

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Tables 1 and 2, but excluding the conclusion portion) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "L" at the last part of the judgment shall be changed to "M".

Part 4: The second sheet and the following four shall be added as follows:

As indicated in attached Table 3, the result of the appraisal commission for appraiser K includes: ① 1-03-13 Jdong additional Woodong: 9,549,475 ; ② 1-04-09 : 4,396,000 ; ③ 1-04-12 : 3,922,00 ; ④ 1-06-03 additional civil works: 6,037,792 ; 23,905,267 : 1,267 ; 238,975 ; 239,537,795 ; 263,795 ; and 25,795 ; and 36,79,795 ; and 25,636,79,795 ;

“The Defendant alleged that the original Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost of KRW 20,000,000 with respect to this portion of the construction work, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Although the Defendant asserts that the construction cost was determined at the fixed amount, the Defendant filed an application for the appraisal of the construction cost to the effect that the construction cost would be calculated based on the government fembem because the construction cost was not in the first and second contracts, and accordingly, the construction cost was appraised at the pre-determined amount. If there was an agreement on the construction cost as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant’s application for the appraisal of the construction cost is difficult to understand.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

[] Part 6, 12 and 13 of "the plaintiff is the same (the result of the second appraisal)" is as follows.

arrow