공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a person who operates tin construction-related business, and the defendant is a corporation that is engaged in construction business.
B. Around April 12, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction works on land B and 11 lots from the Yeongdeungpo-gun Office of Education, Yong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract on February 3, 2014 with the Defendant for the part of the said reconstruction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) as the construction cost of KRW 203,50,000 (including additional taxes) and the expected date of completion of the construction works as of May 15, 2014.
C. From among the instant construction works, the Plaintiff, unlike the first arrangement, changed the quality of the stairs room of 384 square meters in a school, from the terain Tech to the terain. D.
Upon completion of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff received KRW 34,307,00 on June 2, 2014 from the Defendant as the construction price, KRW 53,593,00 on July 1, 2014, KRW 21,930,00 on August 14, 2014, and KRW 30,580,00 on September 30, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 14, witness D's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. As seen above, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the construction price and the delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff received only 140,410,000 won (=34,307,500 + 593,000 + 21,930,000 + 930,000 + 21,930,000 + 530,000 + 21,930,000 + 580,000 + 1,030,000 + 120,000 + 30,000 + 580,000 + 12-10,000 as a whole, considering the purport of each of the evidence evidence Nos. 7 through 12-12-10, the Defendant fully satisfied the Defendant’s remainder of the construction price.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.