합의금(공사대금) 청구의 소
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the participation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) successor at the trial, by each succeeding intervenor, is as follows:
1. This part of the judgment of this court is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is identical to the entry “1. Facts recognized” in the reasoning of the judgment, thereby citing them as they are in accordance with Article 420
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed the construction stipulated in the instant contract. As such, the Plaintiff has a claim against the Defendants for the construction cost of KRW 1,324,00,000 for the contract amount of KRW 1,324,00,000 for the contract amount of KRW 923,00,000 for the total construction cost that was already received, ② the Plaintiff recognized as the Defendants’ claim under Article 9 of the terms and conditions of the instant contract agreement, ② the amount of KRW 5,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s 366,00,000,000 for each of the Defendants’ 30,000,000, which was directly paid to M who is the subcontractor (=1,324,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s 923,00,000 for the construction cost of KRW 5,00,000 for the construction cost of KRW 30,000).
B) The Plaintiff and the Defendants agree pursuant to the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
(2) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction by April 30, 2013 under the instant contract and the instant agreement. However, the Defendants did not pay KRW 305,00,000 (including deposit money of KRW 30,000) under the instant agreement to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff rescinded the instant agreement by serving a written application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on March 16, 2015. Accordingly, the instant agreement for the settlement of construction cost under the instant agreement terminated, first of all, whether the Plaintiff completed the instant secondary construction by April 30, 2013 as agreed upon, and as a result, whether the Plaintiff completed the instant secondary construction work by April 30, 2013. The Defendants stated in the evidence Nos. 35,43,44, and the first instance trial witness evidence No. 1, and the entire testimony of the witnesses, which were included in the instant agreement in the instant agreement, including the following: < Amended by Act No. 30513, Mar. 16, 2015>
Matters of the Gu and its deficiencies.