공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff presented a written estimate with respect to the construction cost of KRW 9,000,000 to the Defendant for the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Construction Site Remodeling (hereinafter “Mapo-gu Construction”) (hereinafter “Mapo-gu Construction Project separately from value-added tax”); ② the additional construction cost of Mapo-gu Construction Project on July 7, 2015; and the D-gu Seoul Jung-gu Construction Site Remodelling Construction Project (hereinafter “D”) on July 9, 2015; ③ the construction cost of the construction cost of the 5,300,000,000 won for the Mapo-gu Construction Project (hereinafter “Mapo-gu Construction Project”); based on this, each written estimate with respect to each of the aforementioned construction contracts concluded with the Defendant for each of the said construction works; and accordingly, the construction cost of each of the said projects was implemented.
B. On June 22, 2015 and September 24, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 9,900,000 to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 9,90,00,000, both the construction cost of KRW 9,000 and value-added tax of KRW 900,000.
C. On December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail demanding payment of KRW 6,700,000 to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 2 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the sum of the construction cost of each of the above construction works is KRW 15,700,000,000 and sought payment of KRW 6,700,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 9,000,000 for which the plaintiff had already been paid, and damages for delay.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the total sum of the construction cost of each of the above construction works is KRW 9,00,000, and since the construction cost has been paid in full, there is no obligation to pay to the plaintiff.
B. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the total construction cost of each of the above construction is recognized as 15,700,000, and thus, the defendant is the defendant.