공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence 2-1 and evidence 3.
A. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 12,430,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the construction work of a Mazane Mazoo project on the portion of the Government (1,382 square meters on the ground, 139 square meters on the ground, 22 square meters on the ground, 1,062 square meters on the ground, 486 square meters on the ground, 486 square meters on the ground, and 609 square meters on the ground, among the construction works of the building on the ground parking building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”).
(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)
On February 2, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 22 million out of the construction cost of the instant subcontract as advance payment.
C. On February 18, 2017, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that 30% of the construction cost under the instant subcontract was paid in advance at the time of the contract, and that 40% was to be paid in advance at the time of completion of construction work 90%, and the Defendant delayed payment. In addition, since the principal contractor’s obligation to provide the Defendant’s construction site was delayed or impossible due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the remaining construction work after discontinuance of the construction work, the instant subcontract should be rescinded on this ground
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 86,068,353, which is the remainder of the construction cost, computed by deducting KRW 22,00,000 from KRW 108,068,353, the construction cost corresponding to the area of the completed portion, as the completed portion, to the progress payment for the first floor, the first floor, the second floor, and the fourth floor among the instant buildings that were completed to the Plaintiff.
3. In full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff’s statement No. 2-1 and No. 4, and the witness D’s testimony indicated that the Plaintiff would pay 30% as advance payment, 40% as part payment, 90% as part payment, and 30% as of completion of construction work, respectively, to the lower end of the written estimate issued in relation to the instant construction work, which was issued by the lower end of December 2016.