beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the second sentence of the judgment is as follows: ① using “B (Co., Ltd. prior to the alteration)” in the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as “B (Co., Ltd. D, which was a party to the joint supply and demand)”; ② using “B” in the fifth 19th sentence as “from October 1, 2013,” “from October 31, 2013,” and using “from November 1, 2013,” the third 8th 10 to the last sentence of the 9th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 3rd 3rd 3rd 16th 3rd 16th 3rd 16th 16th 70%” in the statement of calculation; and it is acknowledged that the court of first instance and the court of first instance are justified in finding facts in accordance with the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part which was written after the trial (the part 8th to the last 9th eth eth eth eth eth son of the first instance judgment).
Pursuant to the relevant legal principles prior to the determination on the grounds of preliminary claim, in cases where the contents of the contract, such as the construction period by the number of teas as stipulated in each type of teas contract, are modified, the application for adjustment of the contract amount by the number of teas can be made pursuant to Article 23 of the General Conditions of this case. Unless there is any change in the terms of the contract, such as the construction period stipulated in each type of teas contract, the application for adjustment of the contract amount cannot be made solely on the ground that the construction
The primary reason for the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is that, in the case of a contract by the number of vehicles that took place or entered into after the expiration of the initial total construction period, the Plaintiffs may apply for adjustment of the additional cost of construction to the whole construction period regardless of whether the construction period has been modified. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the relevant legal principles
Ultimately, the primary reason for the plaintiffs' primary claim is without merit to examine the remainder.