beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. With respect to the E (hereinafter “instant construction”) ordered by the Plaintiff’s assertion D (hereinafter “D”), the Plaintiff finally agreed from the Defendant that the construction cost of the instant construction site was KRW 17,000,000,000, around May 2014, and KRW 1,600,000, and KRW 10,100,000, around October 2015, after being awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of the instant temporary construction site around 17,00,000 (excluding value-added tax). Since the construction cost of the instant construction period was modified, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the said additional construction cost of KRW 3,00,000,000, KRW 3,000,000, KRW 300,000, KRW 300,000, KRW 200, KRW 3000, KRW 7,0000.
2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the testimony by the witness G of the first instance trial on the claim for the cost of the provisional removal office, the Defendant’s request for the electrical construction in relation to the temporary removal office installed at the construction site of this case is recognized.
However, with respect to the above construction work, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,100,00 as the construction cost on or around May 2014, and KRW 1,60,000 on or around July 2014, and KRW 10,100,000 on or around October 2015, respectively. As to whether the above construction cost was finally agreed upon at KRW 17,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), each of the following circumstances can be comprehensively taken into account: (i) the Plaintiff did not submit each written estimate (Evidence 3-1, 3-3-2, 4, 6, 7, and 2 (including the virtual number) prepared by the Plaintiff without the involvement of the Defendant; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not submit objective materials to prove that each of the above construction cost was the amount agreed upon with the Defendant; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not submit any objective materials to prove that the construction cost was the amount agreed upon with the Defendant.