beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court's reasoning, except for the part which is dismissed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The phrase “153,552,300 won” of the first instance court’s 5th sentence 7 is “154,968,00 won”; the phrase “5,118,470,000 won” of the 6th sentence is “5,118,410,00 won”; the phrase “5,118,470 won” of the 6th sentence is “5,118,410 won”; the phrase “5,118,410 won” of the 6th sentence; the phrase “5,118,410 won” of the 6th sentence is “5,118,410 won”; the phrase “5,600 won” of the 10th and 12th sentence is “5,118,410 won”, respectively.
The following shall be added to the sixthth sentence of the first instance court:
4) Since the agreement on compensation for delay concerning reduction of liquidated damages is scheduled for the delay of the completion of work by the contractor, the court may reduce the amount of the compensation for delay where it is deemed unduly excessive pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act. The amount of the compensation for delay imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff should be reduced excessively, and the overall heading from Chapter 5 to 8 of the first instance judgment shall be reduced as follows. (On the other hand, on August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that the completion of the last process of the construction of the instant case as of August 12, 2014, is the completion of the construction of the construction of the instant case as of August 12, 2014.
On August 12, 2014, with respect to whether the Plaintiff completed the last process of the instant construction, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 12-1 through 48, is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s performance of landscaping, painting, door, even even and glass construction after August 12, 2014 is recognized. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
(C) No. 10 of the first instance court ruling, No. 10, followed: