beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply sewage (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff agreed to supply sewage by setting the construction cost of KRW 35,860,00 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant during the construction period from November 10, 2016 to March 30, 2017.
B. On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract with the content that the construction price in the instant contract shall be increased to KRW 49,060,00 (including value-added tax) and that the construction period shall be extended from November 10, 2016 to May 30, 2017; and that the construction price in the instant contract shall be increased to KRW 84,810,00 (including value-added tax) on June 8, 2017; and that the construction period shall be extended to KRW 84,810,00 (including value-added tax) from November 10, 2016 to June 30, 2017, respectively.
C. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed the issue of the payment of additional construction cost, and concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s agent, and the original city public official, etc. to the effect that “I would not raise an absolute objection after calculating the amount of blasting car in the amount of powder. It shall be calculated based on the quantity issued by the National Land Division.” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
In the event that the quantity of powders in the agreement of this case is deemed to be a non-presidential volume and the quantity of blasting cancer is calculated, the quantity shall not exceed the design quantity of the blasting cancer of the construction of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 1-2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-4-1, 4-1, and the purport of the whole argument as to the part of the plaintiff's argument in the whole, the plaintiff implemented blasting construction works on the filled section which is not reflected in the design quantity of the blasting cancer of the construction of this case due to the defendant's wrong work instruction, etc.
The agreement of this case is to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by this.