공사대금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 7,670,000, and 5% per annum from July 25, 2014 to April 29, 2015.
1. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff completed construction works for the extension of factory on the five lots outside Asan City, Asan-si, and the five lots of land from the Defendants.
2. Claim amount of the plaintiff;
A. The first construction cost of KRW 134970,000 (including value-added tax of KRW 1,2270,000): there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the said amount was agreed as the first construction cost.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants to increase the first construction cost as KRW 154 million (including value-added tax 14 million) due to the occurrence of the additional construction cost related to warehouse operation and Mami-moride, electrical construction, and e-mail after the above agreement. However, considering that the witness E’s testimony as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is the principal of the case where E actually performed the above construction, it is difficult to believe it, and the other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it (at the absence of objective evidence to acknowledge that the intent of the Plaintiff and the Defendants was consistent, and there is no consistency in the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, so the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.
In this respect, only 13,4970,000 won is recognized.
B. The second construction cost of KRW 154 million (including value-added tax of KRW 14 million): there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the said amount was agreed upon as the second construction cost.
The plaintiff asserts that the additional construction cost of KRW 4.27 million related to the expansion of office and the removal of the factory floor was agreed upon after the above agreement, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.
In this respect, the second construction cost is only KRW 154 million.
(c) relating to the F Company;