공사대금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for construction work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the period from August 17, 2013 to September 15, 2013, KRW 32 million for the construction cost (a value-added tax plus KRW 9.6 million for the last payment, intermediate payment of KRW 16 million for the last payment, payment of KRW 16 million for the last payment, payment of KRW 6.4 million for the remainder on September 2013, and payment of KRW 6.4 million for the period from August 17, 2013 to September 15, 2013). The Plaintiff received KRW 9.6 million for the down payment from the Defendant.
B. On September 7, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should withdraw from the construction site, and the Plaintiff suspended the progress of the construction and completed the construction at the site.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s notice of unfair steel acceptance, promised to settle the number of persons that the Defendant invested in the site at the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal, by settling the accounts at the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal, and the Plaintiff, during the construction period (from August 17, 2013 to September 6, 2013), was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 35,420,000,000, deducting the down payment already received from the total construction cost (i.e., KRW 154 x KRW 230,00,000,000).
The statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 alone was insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant promised to settle the number of persons that the defendant placed in the site and the plaintiff puts a total of 154 persons during the construction period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the above evidence alone is difficult to compute the number of persons that the plaintiff invested during the construction period, and there is no evidence to calculate it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. The Defendant did not properly implement the instant construction contract by not only inserting the number of workers less than those stipulated in the instant construction contract to the site, but also inserting workers under the influence of alcohol to the site.