Representative Director

Attorney Ahn Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

P Representative Director

2. B (57 years old, South Korea)

[Defendant-Appellant] International Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellee]

3. B1 (P 48 Years, South Korea)

Attorney Kim Young-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 25% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 75% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the electrical construction business, which is a person who constructed electrical construction among the new construction works of an officetel in a scale of 2,083.36 meters of the total floor area of the 2,083.2. The defendant B1 was registered on February 17, 1996, and the defendant B was a new owner of the above new construction work on March 15, 2004. The defendant company was changed to the new owner of the above new construction work on June 28, 2005. The above new construction site of the above new construction site of this court around 2004ta2939 was awarded in the voluntary auction procedure around 2004 and changed to the owner of the building on July 12, 2005.

The shareholders on the shareholder registry of the defendant company are P (stock ownership 30%), the defendant B (stock ownership 25%), C, and C1, and the representative director is P.

B. On September 4, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B1 for the construction cost of KRW 84,700,00 (including value-added tax) and one office of officetels (10 square meters) among them, and the construction period from September 2003 to April 2004, and started around that time. Defendant B1 borrowed construction funds from the Defendant Company as a collateral for the borrowed money and continued to carry out construction as the actual owner without changing the name of the Defendant Company to the Defendant B designated by the Defendant Company as a collateral for the borrowed money. The Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the name of the owner was changed to Defendant B around June 2004, and then, Defendant B1 and B were late to enter into a new contract for electrical construction with the owner of the building, but the above Defendants continued to carry out construction after consultation with the owner of the building, and Defendant B’s remainder of the construction period from September 26, 2004 to March 20, 2000, 206 and 300-7.

On December 9, 2004, Defendant B1 agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7.7 million (including value added tax) as additional price for electrical construction by reflecting the increase in raw materials cost and the increase in personnel expenses due to incomplete construction processes.

원고는 수급받은 전기공사를 수행하기 위하여 2004.12.9. ◆을 운영하는 C2에게 1,155만 원(부가가치세 포함)에 용량 75W의 디젤발전기 1대의 제작을 의뢰하고 계약금 400만 원 중 300만 원을 같은 날 지급하고, 2005. 1. 7. 나머지 100만 원을 지급하였는데, 나중에 위 전기공사가 완전히 중단되는 바람에 위 계약금을 몰취당하였다.

D. In addition to the existing electrical construction, Defendant B1 entered into a contract for the installation of lighting fixtures and videophones with Defendant B1 on February 27, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B1 to pay KRW 19,430,000 for the construction cost, KRW 12,000,000 prior to the construction of the Model Epis (201 and 202), KRW 5,000,000 during the subsequent construction work, and KRW 5,00,000 during the period of the construction work, and KRW 2,30,000,000 for the remainder 2,430,000 after the completion of construction.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 23 million out of the construction cost from Defendant B from March 16, 2004 to November 10, 2004. The Defendants’ financial standing continued to worsen and applied for voluntary auction from Busan Bank about May 2004 with regard to the site of the said new construction project from Busan Bank, Inc., the Defendant Company received the successful bid.

F. In the event that the construction was suspended several times due to the unpaid payment of the construction cost, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the fire-fighting facility business entity, and the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the deposited construction cost. The Defendant requested that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff completed the electrical construction for the model Haak on October 12, 2005, on the 13th of the same month following the completion of the construction work for the model Haaks, by requesting that the Defendant be responsible for all the Defendant’s actual owners and should proceed with the construction only on the date of completion.

G. At that place, C3 and the Plaintiff and Co., Ltd. stated that “I wish to avoid and avoid the completion of the construction at present,” and that “I would like to make sure that I would be responsible until the completion of the construction is completed, and that I would like to change the contract in the future of the Defendant Company, and that I would like to make I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see, and that I would like to see that I would be able to receive the completion of the construction, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see if I would like to see that I would not make the draft of the contract with the Plaintiff, and that I would like to see that I would like to see what I would like to see if I would like to see that I would have to complete the construction work?” I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see the construction work.3.".

H. The Plaintiff, on the part of the Defendant Company, cannot be recognized as to the portion additionally executed in accordance with the contract with Defendant B1, and the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost should be paid only as a substitute, and did not reach an agreement on the above additional construction cost and payment method.

I. After that, the Plaintiff tried to have specific consultation with the Defendants on the method of the progress of the construction work, but did not contact from the end of October 2005, and the construction was suspended around November 2005.

(j) Meanwhile, the Defendant Company, following the construction suspended as above, ordered 34,00,000 won for electrical construction to 71.5 million won on December 15, 2005, and paid 71.5 million won in total by March 6, 2006, upon completion of the construction by 34,000 won as advance payment.

k. The defendant company is currently in sales with the approval of use on May 24, 2006 for the Ntel newly built.

C. The appraiser C5 of this Court was examined as non-existent materials relating to the construction at the time when the Plaintiff ceased the construction. The work amount was expressed as above the Plaintiff’s assertion and calculated based on the Plaintiff’s assertion. (1) In the case of electrical construction, 40.11% of the total construction amount, 38,406,00 won, 40.11% of the total construction amount, 43,232,00 won in the case of telecommunications construction, 2170 won in the construction amount, 50.372% of the total construction amount, 19,167,00 won in the case of fire-fighting construction, 19,721,00 won in the total construction amount, 50 won in the construction amount, 50.3% of the total construction amount, 19,721,000 won in the construction amount, 50.37% of the construction amount, 175% of the construction amount in the construction amount, 19.7% of the total construction amount, 175% of the fire and 20.3

[Based on Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including each number), Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 6, Witness D1, D2, and C4; Results of the on-site verification by this court; Results of appraiser C5’s evaluation and supplementation of appraiser C5; inquiry results of appraiser C5; purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) The occurrence of debts, such as construction cost;

(1) Part of the construction cost liability

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B1 and Defendant B are the orderer who entered into a contract for electrical construction work between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and have the obligation to pay the unpaid amount of the Plaintiff's work price. The Defendant Company (the actual owner C3) changed the name of the owner with the money loaned to Defendant B1 as security of the money and changed to that in the future with the consent of Defendant B, who is his employee. In addition, on October 13, 2005, Defendant B promised on October 13, 2005 that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the unpaid amount of the Plaintiff's work price in accordance with the above agreement, since Defendant B was an employee of the Defendant Company who entered into the contract with the Plaintiff, and Defendant B was liable to pay the unpaid amount of the Plaintiff's work price in accordance with the above agreement (as long as accepting the claim for the construction price under the agreement as above, the Defendant Company does not separately determine

(2) The portion of debt related to the diesel power plant

According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to C2 for the execution of the above electrical construction as the down payment according to the request for the manufacture of diesel electric power. However, since the defendants were subject to forfeiture of the down payment amounting to KRW 4 million without completing the construction work on the wind where the above electrical construction is suspended due to the failure to perform the above contract and agreement, the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 4 million and delay damages.

B. Scope of obligation for construction price

(1) In a case where the contractor has to settle the construction cost on the basis of the completed construction cost due to the rescission of the construction contract without completion of the construction work, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed construction cost to the agreed construction cost by applying the ratio of the completed part and the construction cost calculated on the basis of the construction cost actually required or to be required for the unconstruction part. The completed construction cost is the ratio of the construction cost to the total construction cost required for the completed part of the total construction cost, which is different from the construction cost already completed part, to the total construction cost. If the design and specifications are modified in the construction contract, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the ratio of the changed construction cost to the changed construction cost due to the design and specifications (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da4095, Feb. 26, 2003).

(2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff and Defendant B1 agreed to add the construction cost by reflecting the increase in raw materials cost, etc. on December 9, 2004 and agreed to add the construction cost according thereto. Accordingly, in the event that construction cost should be settled based on the Plaintiff’s climatic height, the construction cost should be calculated based on the climatic height applying the aforementioned changed construction cost by applying the ratio of climatic and climatic ratio to the changed construction cost. Meanwhile, the climatic and climatic ratio to the total construction cost incurred in completing the unconstruction portion. As a result of the climatic evaluation of the climatic value, the climatic ratio of electrical, telecommunication, and fire fighting construction was 78.13%, and 17.1%, and the climatic ratio of the climatic value of the climatic and videophone installation work was 17.6%, and there were no objective data at the time of the discontinuance of construction work.

Accordingly, it is clear that the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s construction cost for health care, electricity, telecommunication, and hydrogen room construction cost of KRW 93,300,00 ( KRW 85,600,000 + KRW 77,00) is calculated, and it is clear that applying the base rate of KRW 55,980,000 when applying the base rate of KRW 60%. Meanwhile, it is clear that the construction cost of the agreement for the installation of lighting equipment and videophone is KRW 19,430,00 and that the base rate of KRW 15% is KRW 2,914,500 when applying the base rate of KRW 15.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants have a duty to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendants' obligations from March 9, 2006 to September 25, 2009, when it is clearly indicated that they are the last day of service of the complaint, to the plaintiff 39,894,500 won (the defendants' obligations against the plaintiff are overlapping or indivisible) (the total amount is KRW 5,5980,000 + 2,914,500 won + 4,000,000 won + 23,000,000 won) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the full payment date.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.