beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "52,800,000 won for contract deposit" under Section 8 of the first instance judgment is "528,00,000 won for contract deposit" and the evidence additionally submitted in the court of the first instance that is insufficient to support the plaintiff's assertion in light of the following circumstances, the court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment except for the rejection of each of the testimony of Section 5 or 8 (including the number of branch numbers) and the witness B and E under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[A] The certificate of evidence contract No. 8 is a contract signed on March 6, 2014 between the same-sex metal and the Typian, among the terms of the contract under Article 2
5. The terms of the contract include only the “production and delivery” and include the contract amount of KRW 720,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).
Based on these contents, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for only 720,000,000 won for the manufacture of the instant machinery from the same-sex metal. Accordingly, 720,000,000 won was a pure manufacturing cost that does not include a trial run, and subsequently, concluded a contract with the Defendant, including the installation and trial run, with the Defendant, which was 850,00,000 won (value-added tax separate) and agreed to exclude the installation, re-installation, and trial run, and agreed to lower the contract price.
(No. 4) asserts to the effect that (No. 4) is true.
However, although the form of evidence No. 4 is the same as the evidence No. 8, there is no explicit stipulation that the obligation of Typ as set forth in Article 2 is limited to the production, or that the installation or test operation is excluded. If the plaintiff's assertion changes the part of the contract price, installation, and test operation, it is not limited to the change of the part, but it is completely different from the form or content of evidence No. 4. 3.