공사대금
1. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 69,601,550 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 51,81,380 among them.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who produces, installs, and sells landscaping facilities in the name of “B”. 2) The Defendant is a corporation that completed the registration of incorporation on December 22, 200 for the purpose of landscaping facility construction business.
B. The Defendant requested the construction of landscaping facilities and the Plaintiff’s completion of construction) from August 18, 2014 to May 3, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to install landscaping facilities, such as land wells, which are equivalent to KRW 112,101,550 in total (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant construction”). The instant landscaping facilities are “instant landscaping facilities”.
(2) The Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction work around that time.
C. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a memorandum of payment (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) stating that “The Defendant promised to pay the price related to the instant construction work by December 28, 2015” (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 69,601,550 (i.e., KRW 112,101,550 - KRW 42,500,000), barring special circumstances.
B. As to the instant landscaping facility built by the Plaintiff (a summary of the Defendant’s assertion), there are defects, such as gold and seal work is inferior on that pole, etc., and KRW 17,790,170 should be additionally disbursed for the repair thereof.
B) The Plaintiff destroyed a road while doing cream work in relation to the instant construction, and the Defendant, who received a claim from the ordering authority, spent KRW 6,00,000 at the repair cost. C) Ultimately, the Plaintiff substituted the defect repair to the Defendant.