공사대금 등
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,937,213 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from June 26, 2013 to January 30, 2015.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. A) On January 8, 2013, the Defendant contracted the construction of a complex facility with the size of the first and fifth floors underground (hereinafter “instant facility”) from SK Energy Co., Ltd. on the ground of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant facility”). On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff and the said construction during the construction period (hereinafter “instant construction”) entered into a contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) stipulating that the construction cost shall be KRW 715,00,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the construction cost from January 31, 2013 to April 10, 2013.
B) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work after completion, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 633,50,750 as the subcontract price [based on recognition]: Evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the subcontract price (i.e., KRW 715,00,000 - KRW 633,502,750) and delay damages.
B. Determination 1 on the claim for additional construction cost as to the Plaintiff’s assertion A) The KS Energy Corporation, the project owner, changed the design, and the Plaintiff additionally built the additional construction work accordingly.
B) In addition, since the Plaintiff started the instant construction, there was a big difference between the amount presented by the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract and the amount to be actually executed by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff demanded several times to adjust the contract amount to the Defendant, the Defendant stated that “the date of completion is urgent, and the additional construction volume should be settled once after completion,” and the Plaintiff included the additional construction volume and carried out construction work. Meanwhile, the Defendant used it as materials that the Plaintiff could not technically execute.