공사대금
1. All the appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the claims added in the trial are dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Nonparty on the construction site of the breakwater to supply 1,749 cubic meters (19,000 won per cubic meters in cubic meters) and the clothes 891 cubic meters (30,000 won per cubic meters in cubic meters) to the delivery site, and entered into a special agreement on the supply site of the breakwater 891 cubic meters (in cubic meters in cubic meters), the Plaintiff agreed on the installation of the breakwater 18,00,000 cubic meters of the breakwater 34 cubic meters in cubic meters
(hereinafter “instant delivery contract”). B.
The Defendant paid KRW 61,500,000 to the Plaintiff regarding the instant supply contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Part concerning private stone, clothes, supply of goods, and equipment costs under the supply contract of this case
A. The facts that the Plaintiff supplied 1,200 cubic meters and clothes 100 cubic meters and clothes 100 cubic meters as a result of the execution under the instant supply contract do not dispute both the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the entire amount of the contract for tin in the first instance trial and the first instance trial, but this part of the claim amount was reduced in the first instance trial, and thus, did not dispute any further. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s statement No. 17-1 through 3 is the content of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s statement, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff supplied tin more than 120 cubic meters, unlike the Plaintiff’s representative director’s statement, the Defendant has a duty to pay the Plaintiff KRW 43,800,000 under the instant supply contract (i.e., 1,200 x 1,000 x 30,000 equipment usage fee of KRW 100,00).
B. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff puts only one of the equipment for the construction work of breakwaters into two parts, the equipment unit should be calculated in 9 million won. However, considering the video of Gap evidence No. 7, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. The portion of the fee for the use of the vessel other than the instant supply contract
A. The plaintiff is separate from the supply contract of this case to the defendant.