공사대금
1. The defendant shall pay 24,825,400 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 2, 2013 to the day of full payment.
B. However, on September 28, 2012, the column for the aggregate of the tax invoices issued tax invoices with tax invoices of KRW 192,846,200, not KRW 192,846,200, not KRW 196,200, not KRW 192,846,200, and KRW 79,279,200 (in total, KRW 79,279,200) as calculated error. D. From April 3, 2012 to January 17, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 247,30,000 to the Plaintiff as the contract price set forth in the instant contract. [based] fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and Party B’s evidence of subparagraph 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant had to newly construct the factory A, B, C, and E: 262,743,580 won (18m*50m*272m2, 2750m2 among the factories of this case; 196,659,000 won in case of A, B, and C, and 66,084,580 won in case of separate E-dong E-dong 66,580). After adding D Dong as a substitute for cancellation of E-dong construction, the plaintiff finally agreed to newly construct the factory A, B, C, D (18m*65m35m2, 354m2, 207, 209, 209, 307m2, 207, 309, 297m27, 207, 3000, 294m27, 209).
Therefore, when the construction cost of the factory of this case was actually settled, the plaintiff was received further from the defendant.