공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a corporation whose purpose is the electrical construction business, etc., and the Defendant entered into a contract for the construction of a health club with the Defendant, and completed the electrical construction of each health club, respectively, from January 7, 2013 to October 5, 2013.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant made oral agreements on the construction cost of KRW 92,740,000. The Defendant paid only KRW 32,090,000 out of the construction cost of KRW 92,740,000 to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost (=92,740,000 won--32,090,000 won) to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is the defendant's assertion from the plaintiff about Gap evidence 3-1 to Gap evidence 3-1 of the quotation for the electrical construction of
5. The sum total of KRW 95,318,020.
There is no fact that the Plaintiff received, and there is no agreement with the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost of KRW 92,740,000 to the Plaintiff.
When the defendant formed a human team and implements construction, only the plaintiff received a daily allowance and took part of the construction work.
The defendant paid KRW 32,090,000 to the plaintiff and the payable amount remains, therefore the plaintiff's claim in this case is without merit.
2. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 5, it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that "the plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the defendant on October 25, 2013 that "the plaintiff was supplied with electrical construction and lighting delivery, and it was difficult to settle the payment by the last day of October 2013." However, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement alone reached an agreement on the construction cost of KRW 92,740,00 with the plaintiff and the defendant.
In addition, the entries of Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, Gap evidence 4, 6, Gap evidence 9 through 24, and Gap evidence 27 through 30 are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the above construction cost as KRW 92,740,00, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the above is different.