공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On February 14, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted with the Defendant for a total of KRW 725 million for construction work; (b) settled the construction work price at KRW 717,300,000 with the Defendant around August 31, 2008; and (c) on September 9, 2008, the Defendant paid only KRW 65,500,000 as the construction price until September 12, 2008; and (d) the remainder of KRW 62,30,000 as the remainder, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the construction price at KRW 62,30,000 and the damages for delay from September 10, 2008, which is the date following the date of settlement; and (c) the Defendant did not have settled the construction price at KRW 717,30,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant over the period of 3 years since September 9, 2008.
As the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is first examined, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant, three years of prescription, and it is apparent that three years have passed from September 12, 2008, which was finally paid by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.
As to this, the plaintiff argues that the payment of the construction cost must be settled with the defendant's notification of the payment of the construction cost sustained by the defendant. Since the defendant trusted that the defendant would not raise a defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is against the good faith principle. However, although the plaintiff's assertion alone does not constitute special circumstances such as the defendant's refusal of performance of obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
(2) The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.