공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion’s completion of the construction of the instant building in accordance with the contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant, verbally, requested the Plaintiff to perform additional construction works, such as the construction of the warehouse, parking lot roof, main entrance and exit entrance construction, interior decoration construction, ceiling construction, boiler construction, and boiler construction, etc. of the lower floor of the instant building. The Plaintiff completed the said additional construction upon the Defendant’s request.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff additional construction cost of KRW 51,195,309, deducting KRW 2,000,000, which the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant from KRW 51,195,309 (= KRW 51,195,309 – KRW 2,00,000) and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no agreement on additional construction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and all the details of the additional construction claimed by the Defendant are included in the scope of the construction under the first contract.
On the other hand, the plaintiff constructed a retaining wall construction in a way different from the estimate and design drawing of concrete, which requires 31,80,000 won as the defect repair cost, and the cost of construction was required to be 2,765,780 won as the cost of construction due to the failure to construct underground water-in-charge construction, gas pipeline construction, and boiler construction. The plaintiff has a duty to compensate the defendant for damages equivalent to the above defect repair cost (=31,800,000 won) (=2,765,780 won). Even if the plaintiff's additional construction cost claim against the defendant is recognized, this is related to the defendant's performance simultaneously with the above damage compensation claim against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
3. Determination
(a) Determination on the cause of the claim 1. A evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, D’s testimony of the first instance trial witness, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court.