beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.25 2016가단13790

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 98,900,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 25, 2016 to July 25, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the new construction of the Diplomatic Association located in the Mapo-gu Diplomatic Association (hereinafter “instant church”). On June 15, 2015, the Defendant awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 176,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the said new construction work.

B. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction was completed on April 15, 2016 (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s complaint) and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant construction was completed on June 24, 2016.

(See: (1) The instant construction was completed on November 30, 2016; and (2) the Defendant paid KRW 7,100,000,000 in total, including KRW 6,60,000 on July 2015, and KRW 16,50,000 on September 25, 2015, and KRW 18,18,000 on November 18, 2015, and KRW 7,10,000 on May 44, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of the construction cost of this case (176,900,000 won - 77,100,000 won) and damages for delay thereof. (2) The Plaintiff asserts that since the construction of outdoor pipeline is additionally executed at the Defendant’s request during the instant construction, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 10,000,000 as additional construction cost.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that agreement has been reached between the original defendant with respect to additional construction only by the statement of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's claim for this part shall not be accepted.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1 deduction, the Defendant asserts that this part of the construction cost should be deducted, since the Plaintiff received KRW 70,000,000 out of the construction cost from the side of the instant church, which is the owner of the building.

(b).