beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.19 2019나43278

공사대금

Text

The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim to reduce and expand the purport of the claim, shall be modified as follows.

Reasons

1. Claims for construction price;

A. The plaintiff is the convenience store franchisor, and the defendant is the franchisee who has joined the plaintiff.

B. While around October 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the opening of convenience store construction at the convenience store D of the Defendant of the first floor of the Gu building C, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work at KRW 31,900,000 ( down payment KRW 11,90,000).

(c)

Although the plaintiff completed the above construction, the defendant paid 15,770,000 won out of the remainder of 20,000,000 won and did not pay the remainder of 4,230,000 won (=20,000,000-15, 770,000).

[Grounds for recognition] According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,330,000 won out of the remainder of the construction work and delayed damages as requested by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

2. The order that the Plaintiff installed at the first instance court on the above convenience store for the delivery of the hardware

1. B. The Defendant also sought payment of KRW 2,900,000 for the installation of the POS hardware (hereinafter “instant POS hardware”). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant POS hardware could not be paid due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly repair even if it was unable to be properly used due to continuous breakdown.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim equivalent to the amount of the price for the instant license, and sought the return of the instant license hardware against the Defendant.

In full view of these circumstances, the construction contract on the installation part of the instant period was rescinded by agreement.

Since it is reasonable to view that the defendant is obligated to deliver the hardware of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the above claim of the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not file a counterclaim as follows, the Defendant made a decision to the effect of offsetting.

section 23.

1) Since October 2016, when the convenience store was opened due to the defect of the instant Posting machines, there was a business obstacle and mental suffering. As such, 36,500,000 won should be compensated.

2) Defect shots.