beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the metal work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among the literary construction work B (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 16.5 million (including value-added tax).
In addition, the Defendant leased a license to the passenger ship company (hereinafter “the passenger ship”) and concluded a contract for the construction work with the NH Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NH development”), and then ordered the Plaintiff to pay the metal construction and its additional construction cost of KRW 23.7 million (i.e., KRW 1., KRW 1.7 million additional construction cost, KRW 22 million, KRW 200,000, KRW 22.5 million, and KRW 22.5 million in addition to the metal construction and its additional construction cost of the D remodeling work (hereinafter “instant construction”).
The plaintiff completed the above construction, and further, the defendant bears a burden of KRW 1.6 million on behalf of the defendant for the license loan fee to be paid to the deceased.
Therefore, even though the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 64,30,000 for each of the above construction costs and the license loan fees, up to now, 54,168,000,000, which is part of the difference [the Plaintiff does not consider the portion of the claim for the license loan fee in the trial, but the Plaintiff asserts that the total amount of the outstanding amount exceeds KRW 8,532,00 (the preparatory document dated July 18, 2014), but the Defendant is obligated to pay the outstanding amount as stated in the purport of the claim because it exceeds KRW 8,80,00,00,000,000, which is the amount claimed as the amount claimed.];
2. Determination
A. On July 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to enter into a construction contract with respect to the instant construction work and completed the construction work.
However, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the construction cost is KRW 16.5 million, it is reasonable to recognize it only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and evidence Nos. 5-2, which seem to correspond thereto.