공사대금
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The court's explanation as to this case is based on the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, Eul No. 11, 13, and 14, and except for addition and addition as follows, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts in height:
A. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s deduction (or set-off) of the penalty for delay (or set-off) from No. 6 to No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, according to the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 4, on August 30, 2014, with respect to the instant pentry construction project, to the owner of the building on Oct. 30, 2014 after completing the completion inspection and delivering the same to the owner
b. Recognizing the fact that, if completion and delivery are not possible within the above-mentioned period, the contractor has made a letter of undertaking to the effect that the contractor will be responsible for issues such as (the application of the rate of compensation for delay in ordinary and the allotted development charges) arising from the owner.
According to the above facts, even though the plaintiff's performance of most of the pention construction of this case led to 9.243%, it is proper to view that the plaintiff's obligation to pay the compensation for delay arises unless he has obtained approval for use of the pention construction of this case, and the defendants' obligation to pay the compensation for delay equivalent to 4.5 million won belongs to the defendants.
The specific details are as follows:
The period of compensation for delay: The period of payment of compensation for delay, which the Defendants sought on November 1, 2014 (the Defendant’s preparatory brief dated June 20, 2017, and the record No. 576) after the date following the completion of the agreement and the delivery deadline: The Plaintiff’s person (the Plaintiff’s preparatory document as of May 23, 2018, stated at the fifth date of pleading in the instant case on May 30, 2018), which was the time when the Plaintiff ceased construction: there was no specific assertion by the Defendants as to the point of time; thus, the time of discontinuance of construction shall be deemed to be November 1, 2014, which is the most unfavorable to the Defendants who asserted the compensation for delay.