beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,393,705 and KRW 8,608,00 among them.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The second 8th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, concluded a contract with the amount of KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and subsequently agreed to increase the construction cost in KRW 80,000 (this case’s construction work was directly conducted by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted that it was merely a worker employed by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s contract for the instant construction work was acknowledged as follows, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected).
The second 14th judgment of the first instance court stated, “The total height rate of the instant construction, including warehouse parts, was 39.24%.”
There is no dispute over the part of “founded ground for recognition” between the second fifth and fifth fourth in the judgment of the court of first instance, namely, “ [based ground for recognition], each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), testimony of witness G of the court of first instance, witness E and F of the court of first instance, the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination, the result of the first instance appraiser D’s appraisal, and the result of the first instance appraiser D’s supplementation,” respectively.
The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence mentioned above and the statements stated in Evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 2, i.e., the purport of the entire pleadings, are considered as follows, i.e., the statement in Evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, i.e., the third to fifth to fifth to fifth.
The smaller between the fourth and the third parallel of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.
As to the instant case, the Defendant’s instant case around May 14, 2015.