공사대금
1. The Plaintiff, (1) Defendant B, Inc., as well as KRW 661,874,630, and the year from November 9, 2013 to May 29, 2014.
1. The Plaintiff received a subcontract and paid part of the construction cost from the Defendants as follows: Defendant BY 768,95,000 62,109,170 106,170,8370,700 24,970, 3280, 3208,350, 407, 205, 207, 2007, 3208, 205, 207, 207, 205, 207, 300, 205, 207, 205, 207, 300, 205, 207, 305, 200, 307, 400, 2005, 207, 3005, 207, 3700, 3700, 3700, 2008, 2008
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. (1) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the unpaid construction cost is recognized as above, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of construction cost of KRW 208,595,830, and delay damages, barring special circumstances.
Meanwhile, the Defendant already paid KRW 50,500,000 to E without going through the Plaintiff and without going through a direct statement of non-performance that was made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, while allowing the Plaintiff to use the said construction cost with his consent or permission, the Defendant did not comply with this procedure, and the use of the siren was not directly related to the construction work. ② The telecom cost is KRW 35,00,000 paid to the DNA representative, and KRW 15,500,000 paid directly to E pursuant to the direct statement of non-performance written between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. ③ The “simplified receipt” item in the settlement statement submitted by the Plaintiff is not specific details of use, and ④ The “general management expenses and other items” item in the settlement statement is not already related to the Plaintiff’s husband and the actual representative of F, as the “actual operation expenses.” < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23748, Apr. 30, 2012>