공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Confirmation and determination of the cost of construction under the instant construction contract;
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the Defendant’s non-execution of construction and the assertion of defects is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim for liquidated damages has to deduct the above money from the construction cost because the plaintiff agreed to complete the construction work by October 3, 2012 but delayed the construction work on November 15, 201 and delayed 42 days. Thus, there is a delay penalty of 4,536,00 won per day for liquidated damages of 5,40 million won and 4,536,00 won per day.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, the Plaintiff agreed to complete the construction work until October 3, 2012, and the completion of the construction work in this case after October 20, 2012 shall be recognized. However, in calculating liquidated damages for delay, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to notify the Defendant and exclude the extended period from the number of delayed days in cases of delay due to changes in the contract due to construction works or changes in the contract accompanied by a design modification following consultation, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to notify the Defendant and exclude the delayed period from the number of delayed days when calculating liquidated damages for delay. As seen earlier, since the additional construction work was completed, the completion period cannot be deemed as the initial date in calculating liquidated damages for delay. In light of the above facts alone, the recognition alone lacks to deem that the Plaintiff delayed the construction work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
4. Therefore, the Defendant’s remainder of construction cost (=8,084,000 won - 1,526,170 won) and the part cited by the first instance judgment as to KRW 4,181,830, which is the part cited by the Defendant’s decision, shall be the completion of construction as to the Plaintiff’s remainder of construction cost. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23688, Nov. 1