logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2015.11.12 2015나20011
공사대금
Text

1. The part against the defendant in excess of the money cited below in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the above revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this Court is that the defendant's argument is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance, and the reasons for the court's ruling No. 2. 2.B. as follows.

2) The appeal shall be made in accordance with Section 2.c. (b) above, add to Section 2.B.4 the judgment on the defense of the defect repair costs additionally raised by the Defendant in the trial before paragraph 2.c.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the case of using a claim in the same manner as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff could not complete the facility of this case, and the construction cost for the part actually constructed by the plaintiff is merely KRW 176,675,08,221, which is the original contract price, from KRW 224,323,310, which is the original contract price. The defendant's argument seems to the purport that the above KRW 47,675,089 should be deducted from the construction cost to be paid by the plaintiff. (B) The defendant's argument that the above 47,675,089, which is the additional construction cost, should be deducted from the construction cost to be paid by the plaintiff. (35,827,274,274, the additional construction cost of this case, including the additional construction cost, can be acknowledged as being added to the insurance premium ratio, additional construction expense ratio, profit ratio, management expense ratio, additional construction expense, additional construction expense, etc. (the additional construction cost of this case is added to the defendant.)

Change of a manufacturing company that manufactures 56,823,00,597,000 26,226,00, and 11 manufacturing companies, 7,430,700, 3496,800, 86, and 800

arrow