logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2021.01.28 2019나18729
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the counterclaim defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and that part is revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding either cutting or adding or deleting the same as that of the following 2, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 5th page of the first instance judgment of the part used or added or deleted, the phrase “14,170,000, total of KRW 43,670,000, such as cost of removing urban gas” shall be written “12,390,000, total of KRW 41,890,000, including cost of removing urban gas.”

The following shall be added to the 7th judgment of the first instance, the 6th judgment:

(4) The Defendant calculated the construction cost by calculating the amount of KRW 3.5 million per square year on the basis of the total construction area of 150 square meters without distinction between the construction cost and the additional construction cost.

However, there is no specific and consistent disclosure as to the construction area to add a total of 30 square meters to a total of 120.42 square meters of the total floor area of the building of this case as indicated in the design drawing of this case. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the total construction area of the building of this case differently from the design drawing of this case.

It is difficult to accept in light of the fact that there is no evidence to view.

“The 8th judgment of the first instance court was made through the additional construction to “an unjust point” in the 4th sentence, “ through the additional construction due to a cause or event” of the 8th judgment.

“㉰ 1 층 상가 확장공사로 인하여 이 사건 건물의 공부상 연면적이 증가하지도 않은 점, ㉱ 1 층 상가 중 나머지 부분의 외벽이 콘크리트 벽체로 시공된 것과 달리 확장공사 부분의 외벽은 징크판넬로 시공되었을 뿐인 점” 제 1 심판결 제 9 쪽 제 8, 9 행의 “ 처마, 창틀 및 대형 창문 설치 공사 ”를 “4 층 입구 처마 및 샷 시 설치공사, 처마 및 대형 창문 설치공사( 거 실 확장), 방 추가 설치공사, 주방 위치 변경공사 및 5 층의 원룸 증축공사” 로 고쳐 쓴다.

To the 10th day of the judgment of the first instance.

arrow