logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.15 2013나44128
공사대금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant (Counterclaim) is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “The interest rate for delay in payment:0.1%” is added under the judgment of the first instance court No. 3, 6-10 is added; “D. The Defendants have registered their business with the type of business on May 16, 201 as “new house construction and sale” and “B” was added to the column No. 14 in the same section 11 of the same section / [based on recognition], and “The appraiser’s identity and result of the appraiser’s appraisal; the result of each request for the supplementation of the appraiser D” is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance court, except for the deletion of “the result of the appraiser’s each request for the supplementation of the appraiser D” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the results of the appraisal and appraisal conducted by the appraiser D in the first instance trial, and each appraisal and supplementation entrusted to the appraiser in the first instance trial and the first instance trial, the above appraiser's final construction cost (hereinafter "pre-construction cost") is the construction cost incurred in the pre-construction part (hereinafter "pre-construction cost").

56,119,170 Won 556,170 and construction cost to be incurred in non-execution portion (hereinafter referred to as “unexecution cost”).

(A) The appraiser included the amount of KRW 466,316 in the installation cost of a provisional office, KRW 449,516 in the installation cost of a mobile toilet, KRW 38,400 in the installation cost of a mobile toilet, KRW 1,009,360 in the construction cost of a mobile facility, KRW 1,963,592 in the installation cost of a mobile facility, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said temporary facility was installed (the appraiser could not verify the said temporary facility in a photograph and video image at the time of discontinuance of construction, but these are basically installed to carry out the construction work).

(C) Nos. 24, 29, 34 (including documentary evidence with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In full view of each description, image, and the overall purport of the pleading, the above temporary materials are actually established.

arrow