beta
Text
1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 42,277,802 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of each of the following items, and therefore, they are cited by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
Part 3 (Attachment 6) " November 7, 2013" shall be changed to " November 7, 2012".
2. Determination on the main claim
A. As to the claim for the unpaid construction cost, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and damages for delay since it did not receive KRW 11,650,80,000 among the construction cost of KRW 318,20,000 under the instant modified contract. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, after completion of the instant construction work, the remainder of KRW 51,650,500, excluding the Defendant’s direct payments calculated in accordance with the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, 23,349,500, and the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 51,650,00 under the instant modified contract, was paid in full around March 18, 2013, since the payment of the construction cost of KRW 318,200,000 under the instant modified contract remains, the unpaid construction cost of KRW 5,5,6,7,12,15,19,205 (hereinafter the same shall apply).
① Of the instant construction cost, the Defendant prepared the actual status of direct construction works (Evidence No. 5) and the deposit sheet for construction cost (Evidence No. 6) with the purport that he/she paid directly to the subcontractor, etc. as follows:
The plaintiff recognizes only part of the plaintiff's assertion as follows.
Items 57,500 recognized as 577,500, 5777,500 households 5,760,000 non-recognized CCTV 1,30,000 non-recognized CCTV 530,000 non-recognized CCTV, see the Plaintiff’s correction of claim and supplement of cause (No. 354 of the record) of November 10, 2014.