공사대금 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant, upon receiving a contract for the construction for the extension of a private plant located outside C and 16 lots from the State, subcontracted the Plaintiff the “sgll material and the entire construction windows, metal, and glass construction” to the Plaintiff as follows.
Construction period: From May 28, 2015 to June 30, 2015 (Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply where any change is made through consultation with the principal contractor on the site): The rate of delay compensation for the contract amount: 5/100 (based on recognition): The fact that there is no dispute on the basis of performance), Gap 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Both claims;
A. The Plaintiff: The Plaintiff completed the subcontracted project on August 25, 2015 after receiving the subcontract as above.
(A) The completion of construction is delayed, and the Plaintiff’s work is attached to the board, after the completion of the steel and steel bars, and the Plaintiff’s work was delayed until August 25, 2015, as seen in the transaction statement (A11) submitted by D Company E to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff had to proceed with the construction from September 2, 2015 to September 12, 2015.
The defendant unilaterally removed the parts completed by the plaintiff without any doubt (each photograph of 9 and 10), and in consideration of these parts, after settling the construction cost as shown in the attached Form (A5 settlement data), the defendant filed a claim for the construction payment with the documents for settlement of accounts (other than the amount equivalent to the additional tax) (A4 estimate, etc.), but (A) the defendant made a claim for the construction payment with the documents for settlement of accounts (A4 estimate, etc.).
B. Defendant: The Plaintiff did not complete the construction, and the Defendant did not perform the construction work and performed the non-construction work in KRW 150,312,280.
The plaintiff constructed a knife catum cat as 0.5 e.g. in the design drawing, which is not known to the defendant and the owner of the building.