beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of service charges of KRW 908,820,00 and loans of KRW 477,437,723 and damages for delay as well as damages for delay. The court of first instance ruled to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 556,820,00 and KRW 477,437,723 and KRW 1,034,257,723, and each damages for delay for delay.”
In regard to this, only the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance [the part against the plaintiff regarding the claim for service costs (=908,820,000,000 won--56,820,000 won) and damages for delay], the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for service costs against the defendant.
2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this part, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds or renders an attachment as follows, and deletes not more than 17 pages 14. Thus, this part is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The 6th 15th 15th 15th 1th 15th 11th 7th 11th “90% of the project approval phase” is “90% of the starting phase.”
The "Evidence A 9" shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court (based on recognition).
From 11th to 14th 2th 14th 14th 2 of the judgment of the first instance court [5] Determination on the Preliminary Preliminary Set-off Claim (C) and the part on the Preliminary Set-off Claim (C. 5)] have been made as follows: (a) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on the reduction of agency fees; (b) In the course of the instant project, the Defendant’s assertion that the construction amount agreed with G, which the Plaintiff consulted with G, a contractor, has increased from 3,350,000 to 3,430,000 won per square year; and (c) the Defendant’s members have additionally borne the contributions; and (d) the Plaintiff’s representative director promised on November 2016 to bear the increased construction price of KRW 380,000,000 as above, to the Defendant.
After that, the director of H and the director of I from September 2017.