공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Around May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to the Defendant that an aggregate amount of KRW 128,424,960 (hereinafter “instant estimate”) is required for the construction cost incurred, based on the content that the Plaintiff excavated in seven depth in relation to the steel pipe entry (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a construction project with the amount of KRW 126,50,000 (including value-added tax) in relation to the instant construction project and 40 days from the commencement date of the construction period (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. Article 9 of the instant contract states that the Plaintiff shall perform the construction work in accordance with the overall drawings, such as prior design, as stipulated in the instant contract. Article 16 states that the modification of the contract may only be modified by written agreement of the parties.
The Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction, excavated in depth 80cm from the Defendant as stated in the construction drawings (a evidence No. 2-1, 2, hereinafter referred to as “instant construction drawings”).
E. After the completion of the first construction in the instant construction, the Plaintiff carried out an additional construction again extending the excavation distance of 6 meters after the completion of the first construction in the instant construction, and an additional construction was conducted to add separate equipment and expenses for the excavation of rocks as the rocks were discovered during the instant construction.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 3, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings]
2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties in the construction of this case: ① excavated 1.5m more than the originally scheduled 7m more than that of the first scheduled 7m; thereby, the costs were incurred in the construction of KRW 15,130,000, and ② additional construction of KRW 20,000,000 for the previous 6m additional construction, and ③ additional construction of 20,000,000 for the new laverization construction, and thus, the defendant was the plaintiff.