beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 38,128,208.
Reasons
1. The basic facts;
2. The reasoning for the judgment on the ground for the plaintiff's main claim is as follows: (a) No. 4 of the first instance court's judgment No. 4, No. 10 of the 1st instance court's judgment "E" shall be "G"; (b) No. 7 of the 17 of the 1st instance court's judgment "No. 4 of the 8th grade judgment" through "7 of the 8th grade judgment" are as follows (the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act); (c) there are reasonable grounds for the judgment on the ground for the plaintiff's main claim; (d) No. 12 of the 12 of the 1st instance court's judgment; (e) the evaluation of the appraiser G of the 1st instance court's judgment; and (e) the additional construction cost in the 4th instance court's judgment No. 28,012 and 267 of the 4th grade judgment as stated in the 4th additional construction work; (e.g., additional construction premium insurance premiums, health insurance premiums No. 397, 4097.
1. In the case of Warsaw (the first floor above the ground) construction, there is a difference between the floor plan and the first floor above the ground surface map drawn and the first floor above the ground surface map drawn up on July 2010.
The construction cost required for the relocation and installation shall be KRW 138,225, and the construction cost required for the new construction shall be KRW 535,616, and the construction cost required for the new construction shall be KRW 535,616, and the construction cost shall be calculated as KRW 138,225,225, among the additional construction cost, in the case of the construction cost based on the plan of the first floor.
In order to prevent the plaintiff from paying four-year insurance premiums and retirement allowances, the plaintiff and the defendant have taken the form of implementing the construction directly by the defendant, the owner of the building.
Since the instant corporation was conducted in the form of direct management by the Defendant, the four major insurance premiums, pension allowances, and retirement allowances are not borne by the Plaintiff, who is the Si corporation, but borne by the Defendant.