beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Done at March 8, 2013, the defendant's law firm established against the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Part II, 10,000 won for construction cost, “7.25 billion won for construction cost,” “7.55 billion won for construction cost,” “Defendant 23,” “Defendant 24,” “79,7350,000 won for 6th page 24,” “7.99,7350,000 won for value-added tax (excluding value-added tax),” and “Defendant 1,000,000 won for 7.79,7.350,00 for 6th page 24 until September 30, 2013,” respectively.
Part 12 provides that "sufficient" in Part 1 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually performed the work after July 21, 2013 only with the descriptions of Evidence 12-1, 2, and 23.
Part 12, not more than 13 shall be deleted and shall be dried as follows:
In the event that a contract for construction works on the scope of a claim for a fixed price is terminated earlier, the remuneration for a unredeemed building to be paid by the contractor shall be based on the total construction cost agreed upon between the parties, except in extenuating circumstances, and the amount calculated by the ratio of the construction cost to the construction cost at the time the contractor’s discontinuance of the construction work is not based on the actual
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da42630, Mar. 31, 1992). Facts constituting 8,191,679,174, including value-added tax, are either no dispute between the parties concerned, or are recognized by evidence Nos. 11, 12, B, 63, 67, and 74, and according to the result of appraisal by the appraiser C of the first instance trial, the fact that the construction cost of the instant case was based on the base date of August 31, 2013 and the ratio of 87.40% can be acknowledged.
Therefore, the defendant under the contract of this case.