beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance and 18th of the judgment.
“The Plaintiff asserts that he agreed to settle the quantity of earth and sand work based on the work day that the Defendant and the Doroto, and calculated the above amount based on the quantity of earth and sand work.” The Plaintiff added the same part of the judgment of the first instance except that the nine to eleven (11) of the nine (9) parallels and eleven (11) parallels are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Attachment]
3. Determination
A. According to the statement No. 19-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 19-2 and the testimony of witness D of the first instance trial, the contract amount of the subcontract of this case is recognized to be determined according to the quantity stated in the estimates prepared by D, a Doroto employee, and special terms and conditions of the contract of this case are as follows: “Doroto shall be written and approved by the defendant if the defendant's work instruction, change of construction method, change of design, etc. is delivered to Doroto, and it shall not be valid for the unwritten construction work, and shall not be written as to the unwritten construction work.” subparagraph 3 of the "design modification shall be allowed only for the modified part, and the original contract unit price shall be applied to the increase or decrease," and subparagraph 6 of the above provision provides that "It shall be confirmed after the perusal of the drawings, specifications, estimate, and construction terms and conditions after the perusal of the drawings, and that the subcontractor shall not raise any objection to any omission."
In light of these circumstances, the Defendant and Doro case predicted and calculated the volume of earth works under the instant subcontract and accordingly determined the contract amount. In addition, when reflecting the change in the situation following the progress of the construction work, the order for design change, etc. is given to B, who is the ordering party.