계약금반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant, who runs the construction business, etc. under the trade name “C” (hereinafter “instant contract for construction works”) with respect to the civil engineering works of Gwangju City D and E-ground neighborhood manufacturing place from March 18, 2016 to March 2016, and with the construction cost of KRW 103,530,00 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract for construction works”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30 million.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not observe the construction period stipulated in the construction contract of this case, and that the factory site should be constructed at the same height as the existing access road, as stipulated in the construction contract of this case, was not performed, and that the construction contract of this case was cancelled due to the above reasons attributable to the defendant, if there were any defects such as ruptures on the reinforcement soil already constructed, etc., not only did the stability of the reinforced earth retaining wall construction work be ensured, but also there were defects such as ruptures on the reinforcement soil already constructed, etc.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the construction work has been completed as stipulated in the instant construction contract.
B. According to the evidence No. 1-1 written by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, when concluding the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are at least five meters in the highest height of reinforced soil according to the terms and conditions of the contract. Although the factory site is recognized as having been constructed at the same height as the existing access roads, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the evidence alone that there is a cause attributable to the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff,
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that the Defendant was responsible for the above reasons is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.