beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.08 2016가합21389

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On March 22, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of March 22, 2012, a multi-family house with four floors D located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

(i) new construction works (including design and supervision; hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”)

(2) After entering into a contract for construction work with C, the owner of the instant construction project changed to C from July 5, 2013, and the Defendant entered into a contract again (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff by setting the construction cost of the instant construction project as KRW 891,060,844 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from September 24, 2012 to July 10, 2013.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 475,000,000 in total, from May 1, 2012 to May 20, 2013, as construction price under the instant contract.

C. 1) From May 2013, the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff and the subcontractor, directly paid part of the construction cost (381,00,000 won) to an enterprise that entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant construction work. (2) The Defendant dispatched the site manager to the construction site of this case from August 2013, 2013, and directly managed the process.

3) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a letter to the Defendant, “The Plaintiff, as the contractor of the instant construction project, shall do its best to obtain approval for use until September 31, 2013, and, in the event that any difference arises between the money paid as the construction cost and the expenses paid to the site, the compensation measures (the amount shall be determined after mutual confirmation, along with evidentiary documents recognized as the site input expenses).” (4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on September 11, 2013 for another settlement of the instant construction project, but did not reach an agreement.

Since then, the Plaintiff did not perform the instant construction work.