공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,628,480 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 29, 2016 to July 20, 2017.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings (including the fact that there is no dispute) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff was requested by the defendant for the defendant to perform the construction work from September 30, 2015 to November 22, 2015, and the plaintiff notified the defendant that the construction price was KRW 90,906,50 while performing the construction work, and then received KRW 30,00,000 as a down payment, and the plaintiff deducted part of the electrical construction work equivalent to KRW 1,170,000,000 from the defendant on October 21, 2015.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 59,736,50 (i.e., KRW 90,906,50, KRW 30,000 - KRW 1,170,000) - KRW 55,366,527 (i.e., KRW 59,736,50) that the Plaintiff seeks (i.e., KRW 4,369,973), and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
On the first day for pleading of this case, the Defendant recognized that the remainder of the construction price payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 59,736,500 on the premise that the Plaintiff completed all the construction works agreed upon on the date for pleading of this case. However, the Defendant stated that he would make a defect in the construction part, and thus, should deduct it from the construction part. Thus, the Defendant reversed the above statement without filing a claim for the defect appraisal on the grounds of expenses, etc., and then, the Defendant recon
In addition, not only did the Plaintiff did not complete the work undertaken or promised by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff did not complete the construction work for septic tanks and red lighting, so it was alleged that the Plaintiff had already been deducted from the written estimate for construction, and the Plaintiff claimed that the remainder of the construction work is claimed in this case) was proper. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the Plaintiff had properly assessed the construction cost.