beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.11.13 2018가단10489

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,008,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 13, 2018 to November 13, 2018.

Reasons

The plaintiff is the defendant's in-house subcontractor who has been awarded a contract from the defendant to May 2015 for the business of beering manufacturing, T/R screening, factory floor painting construction, etc.

On September 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the work of cleaning and painting the factory floor at the location of the Defendant’s workplace (including surtax) and completed the said work within the payment period.

The defendant paid only KRW 27.5 million among the above construction costs, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 12.1 million.

The Plaintiff had been awarded a contract for T/R selection work from the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff agreed not to determine the amount in proportion to the actual work performance performed by the Plaintiff, but to pay the amount in proportion to the number of employees employed by the Plaintiff.

In determining the specific amount at the time, the amount by item was determined and paid by dividing it by the basic salary, additional allowances, bonuses, retirement allowances, four major insurance money, etc. according to the number of working days of workers.

However, the Defendant deducted the Plaintiff from the construction cost to be paid every month from May 2015 on the ground that the Defendant erroneously paid KRW 19,908,000 from around 2013 to March 2015, although there was no need to pay retirement allowances for the Plaintiff’s worker whose working period is less than one year.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, and the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,210,000 won which has not yet been paid out of the cost of cleaning the factory floor and painting work and delay damages.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are in fact responsible for the construction cost related to T/R selection work.