beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 15,723,340 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from April 2, 2014 to March 22, 2017.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Articles 1 through 3 of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the part of the judgment of the first instance court, the “20,000,000 won for construction work” in Part 2 of the judgment of the second instance shall be deemed to be “20,000,000 won for construction work (including value-added tax)”; and on the part 2, the “20,000,000 won for construction work” in Part 18 of the judgment of the second instance shall be deemed to be “20,000,000 for each of them,” respectively.
3.(a)
A. The gist of the claim is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not perform the Changho Construction Work and Round (hereinafter “Round”) that is contained in the instant construction work; and (b) the Defendant requested construction in physical color to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff out of the balance of construction that the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff.
Since construction business operators entrusted by the defendant performed the above title construction and dice construction, and each of the above title construction costs of KRW 9,568,977 and KRW 6,050,000 are required for dice construction, each of the above construction costs must be deducted from the balance of construction to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
2) First of all, we examine the DNA construction cost. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, and the overall purport of testimony and oral argument by the witness F of the party examination witness, the estimate offered at the time of the contract of this case (hereinafter “the estimate of this case”).
(2) The following facts are included in the phrase “drab Mag-do Mag-do Mag,” and “sab-do Mag-do Mag-do Mag-do,” respectively. The amount is described respectively as “2,500,000 won,” “4,000,000 won,” and the Plaintiff is proceeding with the instant construction.