공사대금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.
2. Of the judgment of the first instance on a counterclaim; and
1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is underway the construction of the case, the attached Form
1. The Plaintiff’s content of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 224,630,629, and damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s defect repair as stated in the “the details of the Plaintiff’s claim” was deducted from the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 1,284,925, and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 75 million ( KRW 420,000,000 - KRW 345,000), which is recognized by the Plaintiff as the additional construction cost to be paid to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages equivalent to the remainder of the defect repair (i.e., KRW 224,630,629, KRW 1,284,925, KRW 75,000) and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1: (a) The Plaintiff claimed KRW 16,646,00 for the expenses directly incurred while performing construction works under the direct control of the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant agreed to perform construction works as the grounds for the claim in this part
1. The details of the Plaintiff’s claim No. 1 and the attached Form No. 1
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Plaintiff’s direct construction work amounting to KRW 16,596,00, a total of KRW 16,596,00 should be deducted from the construction cost to be paid to the Defendant.
As to this, the defendant
2. As to the part of KRW 13,261,00 among the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that the Plaintiff performed construction work on behalf of the Defendant is the Plaintiff, as stated in the “whether or not recognition” was made or not.
(However, according to the statement in Gap evidence 6-3 in the case of Madin fever, the plaintiff's disbursement of KRW 54,000 is recognized, and it shall be calculated as KRW 54,00). Furthermore, the rest of the construction is attached to the attached sheet.
2. Of the “the details of the Plaintiff’s direct construction work” 3.