beta
Text
1. The first instance judgment, including a claim added and reduced in this Court, shall be amended as follows:
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff newly constructed a multi-family house on the land of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and concluded a contract with the Defendant on January 27, 2016 by setting the construction cost of KRW 800,000,000 and the construction period from February 22, 2016 to August 31, 2016.
B. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) prepared and issued a receipt stating that the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 398,00,000 as the instant construction cost by November 30, 2016 (the “instant receipt”; (b) the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was forced to affix the Plaintiff; but there is no evidence to acknowledge the receipt); (c) on January 24, 2017, the Defendant prepared and issued a written calculation of the origin statement containing the content of KRW 320,510,816, which included the sum of the flag value as the base date, as KRW 320,510,816 (the evidence No. 3; hereinafter “instant calculation statement”); (d) the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff drafted the instant calculation statement by coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this).
In the calculation statement of this case, the total estimated amount of the elevator construction (hereinafter referred to as the "elevator construction of this case") is KRW 40,700,000, and the highest highest amount is KRW 27,133,333.
C. Since January 24, 2017, the Defendant did not suspend and proceed with the instant construction work. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter verifying the content that contains a declaration of intent to cancel the instant construction contract, and was served to the Defendant around that time.
[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment of the Defendant on this case’s defense is the same as the Suwon District Court 2018Gahap23281 case, which had already been filed prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “related lawsuit”), and thus, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and thus, is unlawful.