공사대금
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 223,596,925 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from September 27, 2016 to May 4, 2018.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction of an error-dong residential complex building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 6,037,00,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax).
Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reflected the construction cost of the work type omitted on October 28, 2014, and increased the construction cost to KRW 6,475,950,00 (excluding value-added tax), but finally, on June 26, 2015, the construction cost of KRW 7,300,000 (value-added tax of KRW 224,767,670,000) was written in the statement of construction cost accounts for KRW 16, as the value-added tax was written in the statement of construction cost accounts for KRW 16,00,00 (value-added tax of KRW 2,247,67,670,00,00, which is the cost of taxation, among the contract amount, was set at KRW 10,00,000, which is the cost of construction work of this case.
The instant contract for the instant construction works is collectively referred to as “instant contract.”
B. During the process of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff completed the construction work in accordance with the modified design with the approval of Korea Co., Ltd., which entered into a construction supervision contract with the Defendant, on the modification of heat supply, installation of elevator machinery room, etc., by obtaining the approval from the UNC architect.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s construction cost was paid for the Defendant’s construction work or reconstruction by executing a part of the instant construction work or arbitrarily altering construction work.
On April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Guro-gu from the head of the Gu for the use of the instant building, and requested the Defendant to undergo the completion inspection on May 9, 2016.
On May 16, 2016, Korea, Inc., which performed inspections, proposed supervision opinion that the approval of completion inspection is impossible, as Korea, should revise and supplement the type of electricity and fire-fighting-related work on May 16, 2016.
Accordingly, the defendant.