공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below.
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff (C: C) supplied the Defendant and the Defendant with the boiler (air heat hump pumps; hereinafter “instant boiler”) in the attached Form KRW 10 million; however, the Defendant received installation subsidies from the Korea Electric Power Corporation and paid the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 7.5 million in installments every eight years (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).
B. Accordingly, on November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff installed the boiler of this case at the Defendant’s office (Seosung-si D).
C. The boiler of this case is a structure that stores water tanks in water tanks at night using core electric power supported by the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and makes heating to the lower level of the water.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff supplied the boiler to the Defendant under the instant supply contract. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 10 million for the boiler and the delay damages therefrom.
B. At the time of concluding the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff saved 60 to 70% of the electric utility fee when replacing the instant boiler to the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant supply contract, but can expect the same ion effect as the existing heating facilities, and may also receive installation subsidies from the Korea Electric Power Corporation. However, the instant boiler did not have a heating function to replace the existing boiler.
Therefore, the defendant cancelled the supply contract of this case by delivery of counter-claim, and sought removal of the boiler of this case from the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The fact that the Plaintiff supplied the boiler to the Defendant on November 16, 2015 according to the instant supply contract is as seen earlier, and the Defendant installed the boiler.