beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The parties asserts to the following purport:
The Plaintiff, as a contractor under a contract with the Defendant, claims the remainder of the construction cost excluding KRW 10,658,143 of the construction cost for the installation of equipment, which is a non-construction part directly owned under the premise that the instant construction has been completed.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since construction work equivalent to KRW 31,142,643 has not been completed and the construction work in this case has not yet been completed, the above amount of the defendant's assertion necessary to complete the non-construction part should be deducted from the construction cost.
B. 1) Determination 1) In the event that the construction is suspended during the course of the construction project and the last process scheduled to be finished, it shall be deemed that the construction has not been completed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed in compliance with the terms of social norms and the main structure of the construction project is completed as agreed upon. However, if it is required to repair under incomplete circumstances, it is only that the construction is completed but it is only a defect in the object. Whether the last process has been completed should be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the contract for the construction project and the principle of good faith, without recourse to the contractor’s assertion or the completion inspection conducted by the contractor (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da23150, Oct. 10, 197). 2) In this case, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the health team, the evidence as seen earlier, and the purport of all arguments, the construction of this case constitutes a case where the date is completed under social norms: