공사대금
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
가. 피고 농업회사법인 C 주식회사(이하 ‘피고 C’라 한다)는 2011. 9. 29. 피고 B과 사이에, 충남 부여군 E 외 4필지 지상에 계사(鷄舍) 4동 및 관리사 1동을 신축하는 공사에 관한 도급계약을 체결하였다
(hereinafter “instant contract”). Upon entering into the instant contract, Defendant C and Defendant B set the construction period as KRW 3,132,503,000, respectively, from October 3, 201 to January 30, 2012.
B. On December 2, 2011, Defendant B entered into a subcontract on the automation facility construction work among the said new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the Plaintiff operating a facility company under the trade name “F” (hereinafter “F”).
(hereinafter “instant subcontract.” Defendant B and the Plaintiff concluded the instant subcontract, respectively, set the instant facility project period as KRW 563,540,000 from October 3, 201 to January 30, 2012 (construction within two months after the completion of construction works) and the construction cost as KRW 563,540,00, respectively. Of the construction cost, KRW 216,60,000 (items subject to zero-rate tax exemption) was directly paid by the Plaintiff from Defendant C.
C. The Plaintiff completed all of the instant installation works before June 5, 2012, and Defendant C obtained approval for the use of one manager on April 5, 2012 from the Chungcheongnam-do Gun, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23748, Jul. 12, 2012>
The cost of the instant facility project was increased to KRW 640,887,200, including the additional construction cost of KRW 77,347,200.
The Plaintiff received respectively KRW 100,000,000 from Defendant B on January 20, 2012, and KRW 300,000,000 from Defendant C on July 31, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Demand for principal lawsuit:
A. According to the facts of the recognition of Defendant B’s obligation to pay construction cost as to the cause of the claim, as long as the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, special circumstances exist.