손해배상(기)
1. Defendant (Plaintiffs in the principal lawsuit): (a) KRW 6,862,798 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from April 14, 2015 to April 5, 2017.
1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;
A. A. Around April 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased a contract from the Plaintiff for construction of electric power supply housing units B in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun; and (b) commenced construction from May 1, 2013, in the construction cost of KRW 201,950,000 (excluding value-added tax).
B. At the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant added the balcony expansion construction work equivalent to KRW 7,755,901, and suspended the said construction work around July 2014 when the construction was in progress.
C. By May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 190,000 to the Defendant as the construction cost. D.
The appraisal results at the request of the plaintiff on the utility rate, etc. of the building of this case are as follows.
As of July 2014, 2014 when the Defendant ceased construction: 88.48% of the weather and construction cost, 178,685,360 won for external finishing materials, which shall be the slocks, and the slocks: Construction cost, which shall be reduced by construction with slocks: 7,357,667 won for water supply and water supply and balcony repair cost, which shall be 2,764,342 won for toilets and balcony repair cost, which shall be 764,342 won
E. The result of the appraisal by the Defendant’s application for additional construction works is as follows.
1. Costs incurred in expanding balcony of the second floor: Costs incurred in adding internal heat of KRW 3,04,280: Costs incurred in adding internal heat of KRW 4,349,214: Costs incurred in adding additional costs for performing civil engineering works of KRW 2,205,939: Costs incurred in adding KRW 4,319,125 won: Additional costs incurred in construction of the AAL Complex of KRW 490,093: KRW 6,457,950 [Grounds for recognition] absence of dispute; entries in subparagraphs 2 and 3; the results of each appraisal by the appraiser C; the results of inquiries by the appraiser C; the results of answers to inquiries by the appraiser C; the purport of all pleadings; and the purport of all pleadings.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that construction cost should be settled on the basis of the base rate at which the Defendant would cease construction, and the following should be taken into account:
The amount of construction according to the existing rate at the time of suspension is KRW 178,685,360.
In this regard, the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 7,755,901 and KRW 360,000 for the extension of balcony construction costs is 8,115.