beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim for the rise portion reflecting price fluctuations in the progress payment is expanded from the trial.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed for the amount of KRW 94,525,00 for the increase in the amount of KRW 2,438,158,970 [250,000 for the additional construction works above the amount of KRW 250,000 for the additional construction works, reflecting the price fluctuation (=250,000,000 for the additional construction works x 0.3781) damages x 4,359,000 for the delay payment of KRW 1,648,137,90 for the delay payment of KRW 4,359,000 for the interest of KRW 4,379,000 for the interest of KRW 45,288,360 for the interest of KRW 250,207,710 for the interest of KRW 200 for the interest of KRW 200 for the interest of KRW 4,370,000 for the interest of KRW 205,207.314,208.
The court of first instance rejected the claim for increase reflecting price fluctuation in the progress payment in the instant lawsuit, and ordered the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 295,288,360 in total (i.e., loan amounting to KRW 250,000,000) and the amount of KRW 45,288,360 in total (i.e., loan amounting to KRW 250,000) and the payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 5, 2012 following the delivery of a copy of the instant lawsuit from July 5, 2012 to the date of complete payment. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing
B. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each of their respective losing parts (the Plaintiff’s claim for an increase in construction cost reflecting the price fluctuation in the additional construction cost and the progress payment reflecting the price fluctuation in the additional construction cost, and the Defendant’s claim for additional construction cost and the claim for unpaid loans are applicable thereto) and succeeded to the Plaintiff’s claim for an additional construction cost, on the ground that the construction of Echipian in the course of the trial prior to the remand was entirely 250,000,000 among the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.
The court of the first instance before remand 1.