공사대금
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from June 1, 2011 to August 9, 2013.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 15, 2010, the Defendant gave a contract for the new construction of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Construction Project (hereinafter “new construction project”) to the construction cost of KRW 620,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) on the construction cost of the new construction project (hereinafter “new construction project”).
B. From October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the portion of electrical construction of the instant newly constructed construction (hereinafter “the instant subcontracted construction”) from the Construction with the Chang Master Construction with the payment of the construction cost of KRW 62,700,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 20, 201 to April 30, 201.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 62,700,000,000, which was paid for the construction work from the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by the Construction by
In contrast, as shown in the above argument, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul's testimony of witness Eul in light of the statements Nos. 4 through 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 9, and it is not sufficient to recognize them merely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any need to examine them.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. On November 10, 2010, the Defendant determined the cause of the counterclaim and the instant case.