공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,066,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from March 3, 2015 to December 15, 2017.
1. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which part of the construction work of the building B located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building,” and “the instant construction work”). The Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder of the construction work price within two months after the approval for the use of the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”).
At the time of the preparation of the above contract, a contract for the supply of part of the newly constructed construction works from the defendant to the defendant for the amount of KRW 800,000,000.
As above, the Plaintiff asserted that “the structural construction works from among the above new construction works have been executed by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff actually performed,” and the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a contract with the Plaintiff without a comprehensive construction license and entered into two contracts in fact by lending a personal construction license.”
After that, the Plaintiff performed the instant construction, but did not receive KRW 50,000,000, out of the construction cost under the instant contract.
The Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant building on January 2, 2015.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. (1) The Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 50,000,000 out of the construction cost under the instant contract, which was determined as to the cause of the claim (i) and the construction cost under the instant contract, and thus, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000, barring special circumstances.