공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. As to this part of the basic facts, the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part, except for the addition of the following to the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5, which is stated by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
As the Seoul Rehabilitation Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings on February 27, 2018 on February 27, 2018 on the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings against Pung Forest Industry Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff taken over the legal proceedings (However, in the entire judgment, the Plaintiff and Pung Forest Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., are indicated as the Plaintiff, unless special distinction is required.)
(i) "";
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff spent 104,053,620 won for material costs of 145.54 tons for the instant steel bars, 1,280,576 won for the preparation of steel bars, 4,802,160 won for the processing, 33,419,496 won for the construction of the instant steel bars, and 143,55,852 won for the instant steel bars.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not recognize the existence of the above construction work at the time of the completion of the instant construction work, and did not pay the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 143,55,852 and delay damages.
B. If the quantity of the steel bars executed in the instant steel bars is less than 145.54 tons, the Plaintiff introduced 145.54 tons of the steel bars to the site for the instant steel bars for the construction of the instant steel bars, and the remaining steel bars obtained by subtracting the steel bars executed in the instant steel bars construction from 145.54 tons are useful by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant should return the amount equivalent to the remainder of the steel contract useful to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
Therefore, in this case, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the construction cost corresponding to the quantity of the steel bars executed in the instant steel bars, as well as the amount equivalent to the actual construction cost of the said 145.54 tons of the steel bars that were not executed. Since the total amount exceeds KRW 143,55,852, the Defendant shall make the Plaintiff a payment.