공사대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing factory automation systems, etc., subcontracted the construction work cost of KRW 25,00,00 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing presses automation in the name of “E” under the name of “E” after having been awarded a contract with D for the construction work for large-scale correction; the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work; the fact that the Defendant received the said construction cost from the Defendant does not conflict between the parties; and the fact that the Plaintiff was paid the said construction cost does not conflict; comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the witness F of the first instance trial, witness of the first instance trial, and G, the Plaintiff may finally recognize the fact that on February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the additional construction cost of KRW 10,000,00,000,000.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,00,000 for the instant additional construction work (i.e., the construction cost of KRW 10,000,000 for value added tax of KRW 1,000 for value added tax of KRW 1,00,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 13, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant asserted that F, who was an employee of the Defendant, arbitrarily requested the Plaintiff to perform the instant additional construction without obtaining the Defendant’s approval, and that the estimate amount of the instant additional construction was also exaggerated. However, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the Defendant at the construction site, continued the instant additional construction upon receiving a request from F, who was an employee of the Defendant in charge of the instant construction site, to perform the construction of the integrated circuit, and that said additional construction was