beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.02.05 2019나51789

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In the case of a contract for construction work that was entered into with the total construction cost, the contractor does not have the obligation to pay the contractor the amount exceeding the original construction cost as the construction cost, unless there are special circumstances. However, there is only room for the contractor to pay additional construction cost if the contractor has performed an additional construction work that is not under

Furthermore, where disputes arise as to which part of the construction work is included in the original contract or additional construction work, the following should be comprehensively examined and determined: (a) the purpose of the contract for the construction work; (b) the process of the contractor’s additional and modified construction work; (c) the contractor’s instructions or implied agreements; (d) the details of the contract agreement; and (e) the ratio of the additional and modified construction cost to the total construction cost

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da70223, 70230, Sept. 13, 2012). In addition, insofar as there was no prior agreement between the original and the Defendant regarding additional construction works, even if the construction cost was increased due to partial modification construction, the increased portion is not naturally entitled to claim the construction cost as a matter of course.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da38066, 38073 delivered on February 24, 1998). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare all disposal documents, such as a contract to specify the construction details of the instant case, the details of the additional construction works, the obligation to pay additional construction costs, etc., and ② the additional quotation is deemed to have been issued to the Defendant at the time of the completion of the instant construction. [The Defendant’s additional quotation (No. B. 1) received from the Plaintiff is deemed to have been issued to the Defendant (the total amount of “288,251,590, and deposit KRW 50,000).