beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: “On the other hand, I received KRW 50,000,000 (cash and check) from D on September 2, 2013 through X operated by the W Survey and Design Office, and paid KRW 50,00,000 (Transfers) from D as the construction cost of this case on September 3, 2013, and paid it to the subordinate business operator J.
(e) by striking the marks specified in paragraph (1), and by striking them;
Pursuant to Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2, each of the instant lands was partitioned on August 2013 and a subdivision registration was completed in the name of the Defendant and D, respectively. [Based on recognition], the following grounds are as follows: “Nos. 15 and 18 of Eul,” and “No. 15 and 18 of Eul, NHFC, and IBK Bank,” as a result of the response of each financial submission order to each of the witness X’s testimony, NHFC, and IBK bank, except for addition, as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court concerning the cause of the claim is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is.
3. In this part of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the reasons for this court’s reasoning are as follows, and it is identical to the judgment of the first instance except for the deletion of “the counterclaim of offsetting Claim of D. E. E.,” and the deletion of “the counterclaim of offsetting Claim of D. E. E., in the trial, the withdrawal of the counterclaim of offset claim is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
D. As to the Defendant’s assertion of performance, the actual construction cost of the instant contract is KRW 459,347,22, and D paid KRW 517,00,00 in total to I from April 5, 2013 to September 9, 2013, the construction cost was fully paid. 2) evidence Nos. 6, 16, and 17 (No. 6, 16, and 17 (No. 1) (No. 2) of the instant contract, each of the testimonys of the first instance trial witness V, the first instance trial witness H and X is insufficient to recognize the fact that the construction cost of the instant contract is KRW 459,347,222, different from the written contract.