beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s participation period under the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contract Act is limited to the Plaintiff’s participation period under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contract Act is limited to the Plaintiff’s execution of the instant construction project.
③ On April 12, 2017, E, who served as the head of the Plaintiff’s site office, was convicted of fraud on the grounds of the facts constituting “The construction cost overpaid from B by submitting a completion report and a completion inspection report as if the construction work was performed in the instant construction work and omitted construction volume by work type,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(C) On April 12, 2017, the lower court determined that the Defendant used the 186 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,587 unit of 0.9m*0.9m*0.9m of 186m of unit of 186 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,587 unit of 1,58, unit of 1254 unit of 200m of unit of 20
(2) Among the instant construction works, the electric tide piling-up process is to reserve heavy dynamics in order to prevent the flow of soil in the bank and the collapse of the bank even if flood damage, etc. occurred.
Therefore, if the size of the fluorite is small, the power to tank the embankment is weak, and the safety level of the embankment is likely to be lowered.
Considering the foregoing, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff carried out the instant construction works, unlike design drawings, by piling up stones that fall short of the standard differently from the design drawings in the type of construction “gymstones and gymites,” and thereby, carried out unfair construction, such as reducing the durability period for the structure and causing danger to safety.
C. According to the above review, the Plaintiff is entitled to Article 31 of the former Local Contract Act.