공사대금반환등
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on June 7, 2016 to September 7, 2016 with regard to the construction period for the construction of a new house for the ground of reinforced C (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). Although the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 100,303,40,000 to the construction cost, the Defendant suspended construction work on October 2016.
The instant construction contract was terminated upon the Defendant’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract on October 2016, or upon the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract. Since the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 36,945,060 in total to repair the defect in the part executed by the Defendant and to execute the part not executed by the Defendant, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 17,248,460 (i.e., KRW 100,303,400, KRW 36,945,060 - KRW 120,000) as compensation for damages.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost of the instant construction contract was set at KRW 4,00,000 per square meter (3.3 square meter) and the area of the newly constructed building is 3.76 square meters per 111.41 square meter and thus, the total construction cost is not KRW 120,000,000 but KRW 132,00,000.
In addition, 35,153,00 won was invested as additional construction cost due to the plaintiff's demand.
Meanwhile, among the parts directly executed by the Plaintiff after the Defendant ceased construction, the construction works scheduled under the instant construction contract are limited to KRW 1,450,000 in total, and the remainder of the construction works performed by the Plaintiff is either modified by personal marks or an additional construction work irrelevant to the instant construction contract.
Therefore, the defendant does not have the money to be paid as compensation for damages to the plaintiff, and rather, the unpaid construction cost from the plaintiff.