공사대금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 201,328,383.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasoning for the court’s judgment on this part is as follows: “1. Basic Facts” (3 :4 7 %) among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion on the principal lawsuit and the cause of counterclaim
A. On March 15, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction was suspended without permission by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff directly performed the instant construction from the first patrolman on April 2015.
Until the Defendant’s discontinuance of construction work (hereinafter “Defendant’s flag”) is equivalent to KRW 1,159,96,00, while the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,43,200,00 to the Defendant as the construction cost. As such, the amount exceeding KRW 283,204,200 ( KRW 1,43,200,000 - 1,159,96,000) was paid in excess of the construction cost, and there was any defect in or non-construction of the Defendant’s flag, and the amount equivalent to KRW 76,94,00 is required as the repair cost.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above repair cost and the non-execution cost in total, 360,198,000 won (283,204,94,94,000 won) and damages for delay, which are paid in excess of the construction cost pursuant to the claim of the principal lawsuit, to the Plaintiff as damages in lieu of the defect repair.
B. The Defendant asserted that the instant construction was suspended on or around March 15, 2015, but the construction was resumed on or around April 2015 and completed the instant construction work on or around July 2015, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have paid the construction cost excessively.
In addition, after January 2015, the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff, performed an additional construction project equivalent to KRW 390,542,966 (including value-added tax) in total.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s construction cost of KRW 1,760,00,000, and KRW 390,542,966, total sum of KRW 2,150,542,966, and KRW 2,150,542,966 ( KRW 1,760,000,000) paid to the Defendant, and KRW 1,443,20,000, and KRW 9666.