1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “No. 9” to refer “No. 9” to “No. 9, 16, and 17” to “No. 9, 17” to “No. 9, 16, and “No. 17” to “each testimony by a witness A and witness B of the first instance trial”; and “the plaintiff” to refer to “the defendant” to “the witness A and witness B of the first instance trial”; and “the plaintiff” to refer to “the defendant” to “the reasons for the judgment of the first instance trial except for adding the following. Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In relation to the second preliminary claim, the Plaintiff asserts that, in the public announcement of the instant case, the Defendant again presented the basic amount of the projected price at a remarkably high price than the actual total floor area of the building in violation of the laws and regulations on the determination of the basic amount of the projected price, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the actual total floor area. Accordingly, the Plaintiff participated in the bid and entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant at a lower price than the reasonable amount of the projected price and concluded the instant service contract with the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant has a damage claim against the Defendant due to a tort against the violation of the duty

살피건대, 제1심 거시 각 증거 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 이 사건 입찰공고 및 이 사건 용역계약이나 그에 첨부된 과업내용서에는 대상 건축물의 연면적에 관한 사항은 전혀 표시되어 있지 않고 용역계약의 예정가격 기초금액으로 518,950,000원(부가가치세 포함)만이 기재되어 있는 사실, 서울시는 2011. 5. 4. 피고의 기술용역타당성심사요청에 따라 서울메트로 본사 이전 건립(관제소 통합 포함) 기본설계용역에 관한 용역비를 535,000,000원(≒ 24,205,000,000원 × 4.02% × 50% × 1.1)으로...