공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. A. On December 2017, the Defendant awarded a contract to C Co., Ltd. for the construction of a 10-story complex building with the 10th floor D’s surface in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from C Co., Ltd. for the construction of a pelvis (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. On April 3, 2018, when the construction was delayed, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to set the price of KRW 180,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. The Plaintiff completed only the structural part of the instant construction up to eight floors above the ground among the instant construction works, and suspended construction on April 17, 2018.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the construction cost of KRW 193,921,30 (including KRW 23,286,900, KRW 225,391,000 in the first floor, KRW 32,243,400 in the second floor, KRW 32,400 in the underground floor, and KRW 13,000 in the additional equipment and personnel expenses, etc.) in relation to the instant contract was paid until the discontinuance of the instant construction, even if the Defendant deducteds the amount of KRW 149,00,000 (including the amount of KRW 31,00,000 in the direct payment to the supervisor) that the Defendant had already paid as progress payment.
Therefore, the defendant shall pay the above construction cost of KRW 44,921,300 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff shall seek partial payment of KRW 41,340,00 and delay damages.
B. The repair of a building for which a contractor is obligated to pay when the contract for construction works was terminated even on the basis of the total construction cost agreed upon between the parties, barring special circumstances, is the amount calculated according to the ratio of the contractor’s failure to suspend the construction work at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work, and is not based on the actual cost actually paid by the contractor.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da42630 delivered on March 31, 1992, etc.). Accordingly, the Plaintiff performed the construction work.