beta
광주지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단527734

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,064,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 28, 2017 to February 13, 2020 for this.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From January 17, 2017 to September 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) decided that the construction cost is KRW 73,700,000 in total (including value-added tax); and (b) subcontracted the construction work among the construction work for the new construction work for the new construction work for the new construction work for the new construction of the electric source housing in the Jeon-Nam-gun, the Plaintiff subcontracted the construction work to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 27, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the remainder of the instant construction, excluding rolls, shocked, and knife knife, from among the instant construction works.

C. The Plaintiff manufactured and kept the roll and shock net to perform the instant construction works.

However, the new construction of electric power plant was delayed because the sales performance of electric power plant was poor, and the defendant had delayed other processes for the plaintiff, thus inducing the installation of the electric power plant, and the plaintiff did not construct the roll net and the shock net.

The construction cost that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 37,464,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the construction of this case terminated the last scheduled process, and the Plaintiff was unable to construct the roll net and the shock network due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant, and thus, the contractor’s claim for construction price occurs to the Plaintiff as the contractor.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 37,464,00 and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 1 of the non-construction claim, the plaintiff agreed in the construction contract of this case to construct the window Nos. 3 and Eul as the "Handn", and the plaintiff did not construct 120 hand hands of the window No. 120, and the cost necessary to carry the hand hands of the window No. 2,400,000 won (=20,000 won per dog x 120) can be acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff is damages compensation in lieu of the defect repair.