손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that they contracted to the Defendant on February 28, 2014, the construction cost of construction 770,000,000 won (including value-added tax) for the construction of the main complex building in Gunsan City D, E-ground beauty service, and skin management room.
Since the Defendant completed the instant construction work on July 8, 2014, the deadline for completion, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs 200,200,000 won (770,000,000 (the price for construction) x 2/100 (the rate for liquidated damages) x 130 days (the number of delayed days, the number of delayed days from March 1, 2014 to July 8, 2014). The Defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won out of the damages in lieu of defect repair, since there were defects, such as the leakage in the building on which the Defendant completed the construction work, and the heat on the wall and the floor, etc. occurs.
2. Determination
A. The fact that the Plaintiffs contracted the instant construction to the Defendant on October 1, 2013, and the fact that the instant construction was completed on July 8, 2014 is without dispute.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are not liable for damages, such as liquidated damages, since they agreed to settle the disputes between the plaintiffs and the construction works of this case.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, No. 10, and No. 10-8, the plaintiffs are acknowledged to have agreed not to raise any civil or criminal objection against the defendant in the course of settling accounts for the construction cost of KRW 336,506,00 on March 20, 2014 for the construction cost of the instant case with the defendant on March 20, 2014. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion against this is without merit.
B. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is still liable for the original construction contract with the plaintiffs, as they agreed to complete the construction works under the defendant's responsibility despite the conclusion of the contract.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs' above assertion is inconsistent with the argument itself and there is no reason to believe it itself.
Specifically, when settling the construction amount in the middle of the construction project, there is an agreement and even if there is a difference between the contractor and the contractor that the contractor will not be responsible for the future.