beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.07 2016가합50952

지체상금

Text

1. As to KRW 208,024,250 among the Plaintiff and KRW 112,778,750 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from November 20, 2014 to February 22, 2018.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over a claim for restitution due to the cancellation of a contract, the following facts may be acknowledged, taking into account the following: (i) the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including serial numbers), and the overall purport of arguments as a result of the appraisal of construction cost by the appraisal of the construction cost of the corporate ter structure architectural firm (Appraiser C). ① The plaintiff (contractor) and the defendant (contractor) around June 2014 and the "name of construction: D Corporation: D Corporation; E, the construction site: Gangwon-do Steel-gun; the construction period: from June 201 to November 201, 2014; the contract amount of KRW 329,00,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 8,50,000)" (hereinafter referred to as the "instant construction contract").

(2) The Plaintiff concluded a contract. ② From June 30, 2014 to November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 290,000,000 in total to the Defendant under the pretext of advance payment, etc. ③ The Defendant suspended construction work under the instant construction contract at a rate of 52.51%. ④ Although the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to proceed several times through construction works, etc., which is a supervisor, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend construction works on the basis of the relationship with the subcontractor, personal circumstances, etc., or did not contact with the Defendant thereafter, the construction work was not conducted more on the grounds that the Defendant requested extension, or did not contact with the Defendant. ⑤ The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant on March 27, 2015, on the part of the Defendant, at the request of the foregoing construction work, on the part of claiming construction work payment above the agreed construction cost, and the content of the construction contract was proved to the effect that the Defendant did not reach the Defendant’s payment of the construction work price before March 30, 20, 2015.