공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,911,360 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from November 1, 2016 to June 15, 2017.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 8 and all the arguments.
On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of Changho Construction, etc., determined the construction period of metal and Changho Construction from the Defendant on December 28, 2015 to February 29, 2016; and the construction cost of KRW 100,500,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction period from December 28, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontracted project”). (B) The Plaintiff subcontracted the subcontracted project.
The Plaintiff’s construction cost of the subcontracted project in this case was KRW 37,400,000 on March 15, 2016, and the same year
3. The same year, 29.55,000,000 won;
4. 11,618,640 won in total, and 104,018,640 won in total.
C. After completing the subcontracted project, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed the actual construction details and confirmed the construction cost as KRW 96,300,000 (excluding value-added tax).
2. Comprehensively taking account of the assertion and the above-mentioned facts, the construction cost of the subcontracted project in this case is KRW 105,930,000, which is the sum of KRW 96,300,000 and value-added tax of KRW 9,630,00,00, which is determined by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Since the Defendant paid only KRW 104,018,640 as the construction cost, it shall be liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 1,91,360.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of construction work actually performed by the plaintiff according to the subcontract contract of this case is KRW 87,903,00, and added value-added tax of KRW 8,790,300, and that the defendant has already paid KRW 104,018,640 in excess of the amount of construction work to be paid by the defendant, even though the amount to be paid by the defendant was KRW 96,693,300, and that the construction work payment to be paid does not remain. However, there is no evidence supporting the above fact of recognition and
The Plaintiff, while carrying out the subcontracted project of this case, has added the amount of KRW 52,756,00 (including value-added tax) according to the agreement with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is above the Plaintiff.