beta
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2015.12.03 2013가합2725

공사대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,264,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 27, 2013 to December 3, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 1.455 billion (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction period as of June 20, 2013, with respect to the construction of a factory on the site of 779-9 Sincheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the advance payment of KRW 22 million on December 15, 2013, and the progress payment of KRW 470 million on April 30, 2013, respectively, to the Plaintiff, and received a refund of KRW 214 million among them.

Therefore, the construction cost actually received by the Plaintiff is KRW 492,00,000 ( KRW 22,000,000) - KRW 214,000,000 ( KRW 470,000).

The Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction work around July 23, 2013.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 3-1, Eul’s evidence 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the construction cost based on the sexual height at the time of the discontinuance of the instant construction work is KRW 682 million (or at least KRW 510,729,000,000, which is the amount of appraisal of the appraiser’s work, including the amount of KRW 120,000,000 for the additional civil construction work. The defendant merely paid KRW 470,000,000 among them, and the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not receive the indirect labor cost, etc. at the time of the instant construction contract, but the amount based on this premise is limited to KRW 297,264,00,00, and the defendant denied that there was no agreement to do so. However, the defendant asserted that the appraiser should recognize the said amount as the work cost, excluding the indirect labor cost, as to the appraisal of the work, including the additional work cost, and should exclude it again.