공사대금등
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,43,802 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 23, 2016 to November 25, 2016.
The Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant on April 8, 2015, and received 34,100,000,000 won from the Defendant, under the condition that the Plaintiff would use the instant construction contract as a model house, for three months after the completion of the construction work, the construction cost would be KRW 15,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
(A) After concluding a contract for discontinuance of construction works, the Plaintiff commenced interior construction works; however, the Plaintiff suspended construction works on June 12, 2015 due to differences in opinions on the scope and progress of construction works.
The scope of the original report executed by the Plaintiff, such as the purchase price of the work, is as shown in the attached Form, and the price is KRW 28,133,802, including value-added tax.
The defendant paid 9.6 million won out of the construction price to the plaintiff.
【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff gave rise to the reduction of the construction cost of KRW 34.1 million on the condition that the Plaintiff used it as sample housing for three months, on the condition that the Plaintiff used it as sample housing for three months, as a result of the appraisal by appraiser D (including an appraisal supplementary statement) and the purport of the entire pleading, as well as the writing and image (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 to 1,3,4, and 5.
However, since the above conditions cannot be fulfilled due to the suspension of construction by mutual opinion before the completion of construction work as stipulated in the above contract, as long as one's own assertion was not accepted under the following, the defendant asserts that the method and result of calculating the price is unfair. However, considering the results of the overall appraisal including the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the response to the supplementation of appraisal, it is judged that the calculation of the price was reasonable as stated in the facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, and therefore, this part of the assertion is not separately stated in the main reason.
The defendant.