beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the “725,209 won” (736,290 won), “736,290 won” (hereinafter “736,290 won”); and (b) the 3rd and 16th and less shall be changed to the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, the cited part
The Plaintiff asserted to the purport that: (a) the construction period for the new construction of a D factory was determined from March 25, 2012 to March 30, 2013; (b) the price was determined as KRW 118,181,819 (excluding value-added tax with the supply price); (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million on June 15, 2012 and KRW 30 million on March 30, 2013 as stipulated in the first contract; and (d) even after the completion of the D factory, A completed the construction work, such as concrete, packaging, fence, and fenceing construction; and (e) the instant construction work was completed on March 30, 2013.
However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 10 (including paper numbers), D factories obtained approval for use on September 6, 2012, and the plaintiff on October 5, 2012 and the same month.
9. The fact that sales tax invoices of KRW 171,00,000 are issued to G, the owner of a D plant, can be acknowledged. The construction of a new steel structure (the “new steel structure construction” as stated in the evidence No. 4) of D factory, which is completed before the above approval for use, is completed; ② The finished construction, such as concrete, packaging, fence, and fence construction, claimed by the Plaintiff for a considerable period after the above approval for use, is not included in the report No. 1 (Evidence No. 4) and is not included in the report; ③ the Plaintiff failed to submit all objective data on the execution of the construction; ③ the Plaintiff on March 30, 2013.