공사대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she newly built the instant housing unit C (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the Defendant and Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant housing”) at KRW 80 million for the construction cost (the contract amounting to KRW 40 million for part payments, KRW 24 million for part payments, and KRW 16 million for remainder payments).
(hereinafter “instant contract”). During the construction of the instant new housing, the Plaintiff carried out the additional construction (such as metal, etc.) not included in the instant contract while carrying out the construction of the instant new housing, and paid KRW 1.65 million at the cost.
Since then, even though the Plaintiff completed the instant house, the Defendant did not pay the remainder KRW 16 million and the total of KRW 1,765,000 for additional construction costs.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment of the construction cost of KRW 17.65 million and the damages for delay.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract, and the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant house is not a dispute between the parties.
(B) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the construction of the instant house cannot be deemed to have been completed because the Plaintiff did not build the existing building repair and appurtenant buildings. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the content of the instant contract includes the construction claimed by the Defendant, and the fact that the construction of the building of the light steel frame and the 1st unit of the board is completed, the Defendant also acknowledges the fact that the construction of the building was completed. In the meantime, the Plaintiff was a person who received the down payment and the intermediate payment from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff performed the additional construction, such as metal construction. Accordingly, the Defendant ultimately, from June 17, 2015 following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint as stipulated in the instant contract, on the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.