공사대금
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost was set at approximately KRW 45 million with respect to the construction of a new site neighborhood living facility C at the time of strike, and the remuneration was three million won.
The total construction cost actually spent is KRW 390,000,000; the amount returned to the Defendant is KRW 96,80,000; the amount received from the Defendant is KRW 404,725,000; and the amount is KRW 85,00,000 among them is transferred to D; thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 27,075,000 and delay damages.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 85,00,000 to the Defendant, and the notification of the transfer of the claim was served on the Defendant on November 16, 2015.
D A. The Seoul Central District Court (2016Na57870) rendered a judgment against the Defendant on July 26, 2017 that “The Defendant shall pay D 30,000,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 2, 2015 to July 26, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the Defendant’s appeal is pending in the final appeal.
With respect to whether the defendant is liable to pay the balance of the construction price to the plaintiff in the above appellate trial, there is no evidence to acknowledge the construction price exceeding the construction price already paid, and there is three million won in the agreed remuneration and delay damages.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff already transferred 85 million won out of the construction price to D, and the amount recognized to D does not exceed three million won and damages for delay, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court alone alone cannot be deemed to have remaining in the construction price to be additionally paid to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking additional payment is without merit.
3. Conclusion.