beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) from May 2014 to September 2015, 2015, ordered the Defendant to install and operate a steel-frame production work from the two plant construction company (hereinafter “dub construction”); (b) KRW 36,850,00 of the construction cost; (c) KRW 7,700,00 of the construction cost; and (d) KRW 46,200,00 of the “working for the production and installation of a steel panel”; (b) KRW 46,70,00 of the environmental improvement work; and (d) KRW 51,70,00,00 of the “Environmental Improvement Work”; and (d) KRW 34,10,00,000 of the construction cost; and (e) KRW 40,50,000 of the construction cost per construction cost per the above construction work with each of the above contracting numbers.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 122,031,50 won after deducting 104,018,500 won for the fixed payment of the construction cost, and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.
The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the phrase used in the document. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged as
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487 Decided May 13, 2010)
B. There is no dispute between the parties, or according to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 5, and 4 of the evidence No. 3-1, 5, and the plaintiff, on July 28, 2014, the plaintiff shall pay the construction price No. 462 million.