beta
Text
1. Each appeal filed by the Defendant (including the Plaintiff) and the Defendant C’s provisional payment claim are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
However, the part of the first instance judgment is amended as follows, or the judgment on the defendants' arguments is added as stated in paragraph 2 below.
[Revision] The 3rd seven pages of the judgment of the first instance court is "Design and Pilot Work" and the 3rd 10 lines "Design and Execution Work" shall be used as "Design and Model Pats Work". The 3rd 10 lines "Design and Model Pats Work" shall be used as "Design and Model Pats Work."
The decision of the court of first instance was paid "........." The plaintiff paid "..., the plaintiff completed the interior works of the hotel of this case around July 22, 2016."
Part 7 8-17 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.
The portion of “the sum of KRW 186,19,820 relating to 35,216,742 on the ground of the hotel 2-10th and the instant hotel 2-10th and the instant hotel 35,216,742 on the ground of the first instance judgment” shall be deleted, and the parts of “the sum of KRW 186,19,820 on the ground of the modified construction shall be deleted.”
The portion of “the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 35,216,742” of the 12th 3-4 line of the first instance judgment shall be deleted, and the following shall be added:
[Defendant B’s damage claim 150,983,078 won in substitution for the repair of defects, which is the automatic claim of Defendant B, has a concurrent performance defense right, so the Plaintiff’s damage claim 50,000,000 won of the remainder claim of the Rotterdam Corporation in relation to the simultaneous performance among the multiple claims is first appropriated for KRW 100,983,078 won (=150,983,078 won-50,000 won). The remainder claim of the Rotterdam Corporation in relation to the simultaneous performance is more appropriated for the same amount out of KRW 213,40,000,00 of the remainder claim of the Rotterdam Corporation in relation to Defendant B, which is more than the profit of repayment in the order of offset, and all of the Plaintiff’s damage claim of this case was extinguished.