beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this Court regarding this case are as follows. The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) The reasons for this Court shall be determined by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, excluding the parts used by it as follows.
2. Forms 1 to 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be written in the following manner:
If 188,320,280 won for damages in substitution for the repair of defects at the above 203,560,000 won for compensation for delay, and 66,00,00 won for delay, are deducted or offset, there is no construction cost to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. As a result, there is no construction cost to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The part of the "decision on the ground of the ground of repayment" in Chapter 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
The Defendant’s repayment of KRW 418,50,000,00 as part of the construction price in the instant case between September 23, 2015 and September 13, 2016, does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 9. Therefore, the Defendant’s repayment defense is reasonable. Accordingly, the part of the judgment on the claim for the deduction of value-added tax that is not issued by the tax invoice No. 9 of the first instance judgment of “(B)” is deleted.
From 12th to 12th of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be followed.
(1) The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff is based on the claim for damages of KRW 66,700,000, the claim for compensation for delay claim of KRW 176,703,031 (the Defendant claimed KRW 110,703,031 (the Defendant claimed KRW 188,320,280 in the first instance court, but the Defendant claimed KRW 110,703,031 in the appellate court, and the Defendant claimed KRW 110,700 in the appellate court). As such, the Defendant’s above damage claim against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant were served on the Plaintiff on May 10, 2018, inasmuch as a duplicate of the written brief as it was served on the Plaintiff on the same amount as the Plaintiff.