공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Basic Facts
On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant for the installation of steel frame and strawing and painting construction work (including additional taxes) with respect to D rooting facilities in C (hereinafter “instant building”) up to June 20, 2017, with the construction period up to 36,080,000 (including additional taxes) and the period of construction up to June 20, 2017.
On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff received the construction cost of KRW 12,100,000 (including surtax) from the Defendant and the construction period on June 30, 2017.
The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 48,180,000 (i.e., KRW 32,00,000,000, out of the total construction cost of KRW 36,080,000 from May 24, 2017 to August 7, 2017).
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned as to the facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 2 (including paper numbers), Eul 8, Eul 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings was completed on June 23, 2017, and the plaintiff completed each construction contracted by the defendant at the request of the head of the defendant's site office, and completed all the above construction on August 27, 2017.
However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 16,180,000 among the construction cost (=total of KRW 48,180,000 - the construction cost already paid KRW 32,00,000). Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 16,180,000 and the damages for delay.
Although the Defendant’s assertion did not pay KRW 16,180,000 to the Plaintiff, this is because the construction of the instant building has not yet been completed.
The defendant is obligated to pay only the remainder after deducting the construction cost of the non-construction part and the defect repair cost of the defective part.
Judgment
Since the unpaid construction cost to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is not in dispute, the amount to be deducted from the said construction cost on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion is classified as item.