감리비
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Association”) is a reconstruction maintenance and improvement project association established on February 10, 2010 to implement a reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) with the purport of removing a building on the ground of 335-16 large scale 1658.9m2, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government opening and constructing a new apartment at the same time.
The Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that runs the housing construction business, etc.
B. On February 2010, in order to implement the instant reconstruction project, the Plaintiff Union concluded a contract for construction work of multi-family housing (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction work”) with the Defendant Company, and entered into the said contract between the Plaintiff Union and the Defendant Company (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).
Article 13 Subparag. 2 of the construction contract provides that “The Defendant Company shall grant subsidies for supervision expenses out of the expenses of the instant reconstruction project” (hereinafter “the supervision expenses support agreement”).
C. On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff Union entered into a supervision service agreement on the instant reconstruction project, setting the supervision period from August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013 with respect to the instant construction project, setting the supervision period as KRW 88,326,00, with respect to the instant construction project.
Since then, as the instant construction was delayed on August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff Union entered into a contract with the supervising company for the revision of the supervision agreement to KRW 134,985,730 for the supervision fee from August 1, 2012 to February 28, 2014.
As the construction of this case delayed, the Defendant Company requested the supervising company to extend supervision through the extension of the placement of supervisors on several occasions. The supervising company accepted the request and conducted supervision until June 27, 2014.
E. The supervising company: (a) October 13, 2014, against the Plaintiff Union at Seoul Southern District Court (2014 tea 20661). < Amended by Act No. 12835, Oct. 13, 2014>