The nature of the contract for construction works

A contract for construction works is the remuneration for the completion of a contract for construction works, which is the remuneration for the completion of a contract, and the remuneration for the completion of the project includes the contractor's adequate profit in addition to the cost actually paid for the completion of the project. Unless there is any special agreement between the parties in light of the nature of the contract, the contract for construction works shall be presumed to have been completed and delivered, and the contract for construction works shall not be presumed to have been inspected at the same time in accordance with the procedure as agreed upon, unless there are special circumstances, the contractor may not claim the contractor for the return of the excess amount because it has been unjustly paid to the contractor.

Article 664 of the Civil Act, Article 665 of the Civil Act

Kimcheon-Land Improvement Cooperatives (Attorney Shin-yang, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Civil & Civil Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 64Na305 delivered on May 27, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. That the difference between the plaintiff's construction cost and the 2nd construction cost of the construction project is the 5th construction cost and the 4th construction cost of the construction project in consideration of the following reasons: although the construction cost was determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the 4th construction cost, it is hard to conclude that the 5th construction cost had been determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the construction cost had been determined by the 4th construction cost without any special agreement between the parties concerned (the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost were determined by the 4th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the construction cost had been determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost and the construction cost had not been determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost which had been determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost, the 1st construction cost of the construction project cannot be determined by the 5th construction cost and the 5th construction cost.

2. According to the records, the defendant acknowledged facts different from the contents of the examined construction work, which are different from the contents of the original design construction work, and at the request of the plaintiff, completed the construction work in accordance with the original design, and thus, the construction cost was further examined, and the defendant caused damage to the defendant, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff had examined the design construction work more beneficial than the design construction work. Accordingly, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the design construction work in the judgment of the court of first instance was completed, and the above appraisal result cannot be admitted as evidence that the defendant did not have made unjust enrichment such as the approval of the court below. However, the construction cost was 688,100 won and the construction cost was 68,54,827,273 won, and the construction cost was 273 won and the construction cost was 50,000 won, and the court below's determination that there was no error in the misapprehension of the contents of the original design construction work as well as the maintenance and management of soil and water construction work.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act by the unanimous opinion of all participating judges for each reason of the above decision, omitting the judgment on the remaining points of the grounds of appeal.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)