공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount:
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of the foundation may be recognized by taking into account each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 12 (if any, including the whole number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
On January 24, 2014, the Defendant received B renovation Works from the Korean Teachers' Credit Union. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction subcontract with the Plaintiff with the content that the Plaintiff would enter into the construction contract with the amount equivalent to KRW 168,300,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) during the construction period, from January 24, 2014 to March 28, 2014, with the warranty rate of 5% of the contract amount, 1/100 of the construction cost per day for delay per day (hereinafter the “construction contract”).
B. At the time of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to claim the payment of the cost of the instant construction project at the end of each month, and the Defendant agreed to pay the cost of the instant construction project by the end of the following month.
C. Meanwhile, among the instant construction works, the steel products executed by the Plaintiff were destroyed. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared and presented a written estimate setting the construction cost of KRW 3,300,000 for the destroyed steel replacement works to the Defendant, and obtained the Defendant’s representative director C’s signature.
On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 171,60,000 (the total amount of KRW 168,30,000 for the first construction cost plus KRW 3,300,000 for the replacement of steel products) for the total amount of KRW 24,530,00 for the last month of April 1, 2014, and KRW 171,60,000 for the last month of March 1, 2014.
E. Of the instant construction projects, Rib glass (which is set up with the reinforced glass of the head of the two Chapter as a mat film, and will play the role in installing a paint) was destroyed, and the Plaintiff completed the remainder of the construction, excluding the Rib glass destroyed on March 31, 2014, and replaced the Rib glass with a new one on April 15, 2014.