공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
. We examine whether dismantling works have been carried out, such as RP soundproofing walls;
According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 11, Gap evidence No. 12, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's failure to perform dismantling works, such as the RP soundproofing Walls, is recognized.
The following are examined with respect to whether the plaintiff can claim construction price for the defendant even if he/she failed to perform the decommissioning work.
(3) Since the amount of the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant (A) the Plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to install the TPP soundproofing Walls and Pool and to lease them for 12 months, the Defendant shall pay this part of the construction cost to the Plaintiff.
(B) We examine whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the work price for decommissioninging walls, etc.
The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case does not agree with the separate cost of dissolution, and that the plaintiff stated that the contract of this case was "not subject to dissolution", and that according to the Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the method of payment under Article 5 of the contract of this case provides "not subject to dissolution."
However, it is recognized, however, that “pre-determined: 10% cash settlement for the end of the month following the end of the materials storage period, and 100% cash settlement for the end of the month following the end of the completion of the construction,” and considering the fact that the reservation amount is part of the contract amount left without paying as a security for the completion of the construction and the performance of the obligation to repair defects, the meaning of “no reservation amount” means that when the Plaintiff completes the construction of materials storage and installation works for the installation of the RP soundproof soundproof Walls, the Defendant is not entitled to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the agreed construction cost without leaving the reservation amount separately for the next month, and even if the Plaintiff did not perform the dismantling work, the deduction of the dismantling cost is not allowed.
The construction cost of this case also includes the cost of dismantling the TPP soundproof walls, etc., and the Plaintiff did not perform the work of dismantling the TPP soundproof walls, etc.